Debates of March 10th, 2011

The Speaker Peter Milliken

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.

Pierre Poilievre Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs

Mr. Speaker, on January 5, 2006, the Liberal Party of Canada transferred $5,350 to the Liberal campaign in Malpeque, which then transferred back, on the exact same day, $5,350.

In the riding of Don Valley West, the Liberal Party transferred $5,000 on January 9, 2004, which then transferred $5,000 back to the Liberal Party on July 15 of the same year.

In Barrie, there was $5,000 in on July 26, 2004, and $5,000 out on August 6--

The Speaker Peter Milliken

Order, please. The hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country.

Rona Ambrose Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women

Mr. Speaker, the member for Kelowna—Lake Country is right. The economy is the top priority of our government. We are pleased to support entrepreneurs who are delivering Canadian innovations with cutting-edge technology.

From a new technology to deal with oil spills from Halifax, to a new innovation from Ottawa to react to pandemics, this program would help kick-start innovative business ideas by helping them move from late-stage research, to development, into commercialization.

This is how we keep the economy moving, by supporting Canadian ideas and Canadian businesses.

Jack Harris St. John's East, NL

Mr. Speaker, on the F-35s, Conservatives are using 10-year-old costing numbers provided by Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer. They did not even bother to do their own analysis.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the price tag for the F-35s now nears $30 billion, not the $16 billion claimed. This would cost us more than the entire war in Afghanistan.

How can the government be trusted when it is not telling Canadians the truth about the real cost of these jets?

Laurie Hawn Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, once again my colleague is simply wrong.

For openers, we based our costs on 20 years of service. Mr. Page added another 10 years to that. Clearly that is going to increase his number. Throw in some questionable assumptions that he used, instead of consulting the expert people we have in our program, the expert people in the eight other countries' programs. Why would he not have talked to them? He did very little or no consultation with Lockheed Martin or any of the people who actually know about the program.

We stand by the estimates of our experts and the experts of the other eight partner nations.

Thomas Mulcair Outremont, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that cost overruns for the F-35 fighter jets will total approximately $12 billion. It seems that we will have to shell out $29.3 billion, not $16 billion.

The report also highlights the absolute lack of guaranteed industrial and regional spinoffs. This is not surprising. Since there is not even a contract, there cannot be any guarantee that jobs will be created.

How can the Conservatives justify spending $29 billion without any guarantee that this will generate economic spinoffs and create jobs?

Laurie Hawn Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, cost overruns for research and development are being borne by the United States government.

Let me quote Mr. Claude Lajeunesse, president of AIAC:

The Government's leadership will ensure that Canada, along with its NATO counterparts, continues to play a key role in defending the values dear to all Canadians. The Next Generation Fighter is the single largest military aircraft procurement program of the Government of Canada in the foreseeable future and will positively affect the Canadian aerospace industry for decades to come.

Our government's top priority is growing the economy and creating jobs. We are committed to delivering a budget later this month and working on the priorities of Canadians which is the economy, not a needless election.

Yves Lessard Chambly—Borduas, QC

Mr. Speaker, while the effects of the crisis are still evident, especially in the regions, and many workers are now without income as their benefits have stopped and they wait to return to seasonal work, the Conservative government continues to pillage the employment insurance fund instead of helping workers.

Does the government plan on using the upcoming budget to revise its policy on the unemployed by proposing substantial EI reforms, in order to increase benefits and make it easier to access the system?

Diane Finley Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development

Mr. Speaker, we have done a lot to help the unemployed in the past three years. We added five weeks to employment insurance and opened it up to self-employed workers. We also provided special benefits for long-tenured workers. I am doubtful of the Bloc's sincerity, since it voted against all of these measures that would help vulnerable people.

Robert Bouchard Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec boasted about having injected new funds into the assistance program for silvicultural work. But he forgot to clarify that the work needs to be done by March 31, 2011 in order to benefit from the funding.

Instead of uselessly tooting his own horn, will the minister grant the industry's request and extend the program for silvicultural work?

Denis Lebel Minister of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)

Mr. Speaker, for years this member refuted the fact that the crisis was caused by the market and new products.

In an article last week, he finally acknowledged what he had been denying for years. After harping on for years about loan guarantees, he realized that the ruling in London sided with the government. What we have been saying since the start is entirely true.

What has he done to help Quebec's forestry industry? Nothing. Just words. We are doing our job.

Bob Rae Toronto Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of International Cooperation told us that she was going to be co-operating fully with the committee and answering fully all questions. Perhaps we could start here at home in the House of Commons.

I would like to ask the minister once again, who did she speak to in that two-month gap between the CIDA recommendation and her decision on KAIROS? Who in the Prime Minister's Office did she speak to? Did she speak to the minister of immigration? Who did she talk before she made her decision?