Debates of Sept. 21st, 2011

G8 Summit

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, that is not correct. As I said yesterday, the facts have not changed. The Auditor General has made some observations with respect to the administration of this program and has given us some pointers.

We must not forget about the good news coming out of this. The good news is that every dollar is accounted for. All 32 projects came in on or under budget. And guess what? The project itself was under $5 million.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, diverting $50 million from border infrastructure to build outhouses in Muskoka is not a simple thing to pull off. The President of the Treasury Board has been sitting down for weeks refusing to explain how he pulled it off. Again, I would like to ask him a couple of simple questions so we can get to the bottom of this.

Is it not true that he went to local mayors and said that he personally would set up the meeting with the Prime Minister to make the money flow? Would the minister also confirm that he told mayors that for other pet projects that were outside the Muskoka slush fund, he would guarantee they got the money?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, again, that is incorrect, but let me talk about the good news on this infrastructure funding.

This infrastructure funding was recommended by the municipalities. It enhanced the municipalities' infrastructure program. I will tell members what infrastructure programs the money was spent on: rehabilitation of the airport in North Bay, fixing up the provincial highway, and building a community centre that was used during the summer. What is wrong with that picture?

G20 Summit

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at last year's G20 meeting, my city was shut down. It was shaken. It was vandalized. A year later the government will still not pick up the tab. Gazebos, yes, but Toronto business owners with smashed windows is another story.

If it is not pork-barrelling, why will the government not reimburse Toronto businesses? When will it fix the deeply flawed summit management protocol so that the next time small businesses will not get hung out to dry?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the losses and damages to Toronto businesses are regrettable. The claims process is an independent process that has been in place since the previous government in 2001 and has been used successfully at previous summits. Following this review, Toronto businesses were treated the same as those affected at summits at Quebec City and Kananaskis.

This government is committed to providing a fair share to Toronto businesses.

Government Spending

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians cannot put up with this Conservative government's waste and mismanagement. It is wasting $90,000 a day to have consultants tell it where to cut government spending.

Why can the cabinet ministers not make these decisions themselves? What exactly are Canadians paying these ministers to do?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, we do not share the view that the member opposite clearly has that governments are the font of all wisdom and all knowledge and that governments should just examine themselves and come to their own conclusions without getting advice that is available in the private sector in Canada, very good advice. Therefore, yes, we are seeking that advice. For every $1 of spending on experts, we expect $200 of savings.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, under the Conservatives, spending on consultants is up by $3 billion per year.

I served on the cabinet expenditure review committee led by the member for Markham—Unionville. As ministers, we took our jobs seriously. We went through every spending item line by line and we made the decisions.

Why do the Conservatives outsource their thinking? Is it because the Prime Minister trusts consultants more than his own ministers? What exactly are Canadians paying those ministers to do if not to make decisions about the expenditures of government?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, as if the leader of the Liberal Party then and the NDP did not do enough damage to Ontario between 1990 and 1995, now we have the member from the third party here saying that the Liberals did a good job on deficit reduction through their work. Sure, they did. They reduced funding for hospitals. They reduced funding for teachers, for education. They reduced funding for nurses in the province of Ontario. This is shameful.

The Environment

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the world looks to Canada when it comes to the vital research that is done by the World Ozone and Ultraviolet Radiation Data Centre. Despite the minister's denial, the Conservative government is once again turning its back on scientific research.

Will the minister admit that the person who is in charge of this program is losing his job and his government is effectively terminating this program?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the assumption of my hon. colleague is absolutely false. We are not ending any of our ozone monitoring services or closing down the World Ozone and Ultraviolet Radiation Data Centre. We are—

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

You're firing the guy.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

No, we are optimizing and streamlining the way we monitor and we measure ozone to operate more effectively. That is what we were elected to do.

[Some hon. members]

Oh! Oh!

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There is far too much noise at the far end of the chamber. I am going to ask all hon. colleagues to listen to the responses. We will have a little order.

The hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh.

Justice

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the omnibus crime bill was tabled in the House. It—

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Say thank you.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Conservatives are in complete denial over there about the serious financial consequences this is going to have to the budgetary process in our country, both provincially and federally. For instance, a single part of the bill will create several thousand plus additional people going into jail that we are going to have to pay for. We all deplore the cost of crime, but we have to have budgetary transparency.

When will one of the two ministers stand in the House and tell us what this bill is going to cost Canadian taxpayers?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that the hon. member has now become a fiscal conservative. He is worried about government expenditures. This certainly is something new.

If he is worried, I can assure him that most of the cost of crime is borne by victims. A study in 2008 said that the cost of crime in the country was $99 billion, and 83% was borne by victims of crime.

Why do those members not stand up for victims of crime for a change? Why not make that a priority?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, all the minister and the government are going to do is dump more costs onto that $99 billion figure, which is really questionable.

It is unacceptable that the government is refusing to disclose these costs. This bill will transfer the financial responsibilities to the provinces, which are already short on resources. The provinces are asking for help, but the government is refusing to listen to them.

Can the minister tell us how much this bill is going to cost the provinces? How much?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I have good news for the hon. member. Provinces right across the country have been supportive of these government initiatives. I can also tell him that just in the last budget an increase of more than $2.4 billion was given to the provinces.

If that individual wants to get on board with this, he should start standing up for victims, people who are the victims of sexual exploitation, do something about drug trafficking in the country and get behind this bill and support it right now.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the last Parliament, the NDP fought to stop the Conservatives from passing legislation allowing police officers to spy on citizens on the Internet without a warrant. Since this measure is not included in the omnibus crime bill, it is a victory for the NDP and all Canadians.

Can the government confirm that it will, once and for all, heed the experts and the vast majority of the population, who are opposed to surveillance without a warrant?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, outrageous claims like that one, that private communications will be intercepted without a warrant, are a complete fabrication. Our proposed approach of linking an Internet address to subscriber information is on par with the phone book linking phone numbers to an address. What this will not allow for is access to private communications without a warrant.

Our message is clear. If someone wants to commit a crime, we will ensure that laws are in place to ensure that individual is apprehended, and those laws will be done in an appropriate lawful manner.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, even former Minister of Public Safety Stockwell Day was opposed to electronic surveillance without a warrant.

Can the minister confirm that his government is admitting that this surveillance initiative, an even greater intrusion into the lives of Canadians, has been abandoned? Can he guarantee today that it has been abandoned once and for all?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand where the member is getting his information from. This type of outrageous claim that lawful access would not be appropriately enacted by our government is simply that, outrageous.

The legislation will come. It will provide for appropriate judicial oversight in respect of access to private conversations.

Rather than repeating fabrications, the member might want to come and talk to me about what we are actually planning.