Debates of Feb. 14th, 2012

Brian Masse Windsor West, ON

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister said on TV that it would be “ludicrous” not to consider the F-35 order because it may become too expensive. What is ludicrous is the minister's repeated denial that he has a problem.

The NDP has been warning about this for months. Our allies are cutting their orders. The Americans are cutting billions. Even Lockheed Martin confirms that costs will rise.

Conservatives are in panic mode. Will they now tell Canadians what their plan B is for these failed jets and their failed problems?

Julian Fantino Associate Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, that is a classic example of taking things out of context. The one thing that is in context is that unlike the NDP, Canadians want our air force to have the ability to protect our sovereignty and defend our interests at home and abroad. Canada's CF-18s have to be replaced in the coming years. We will ensure that our air force has the right equipment, unlike what the NDP would propose.

Jean Crowder Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, what is ludicrous is the government's blind devotion to the failed fighter jets.

The government is pouring billions into planes that cannot fly and subs that will not float. Damage to the HMCS Corner Brook is much worse than the government claimed. This was no fender bender. The damage is so bad that the sub may never be safe in the water again. The Conservatives are letting down our navy. Why did the government cover up the damage to this sub?

Peter MacKay Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the navy released information about this when it happened back in June, and we put out a press release about it in December. I do not know where the hon. member is coming from. The information is there. The damage itself was to a fibreglass cone that covers the front of the submarine. There has been an inquiry into what happened. The sub is now under repair.

Why does the NDP not want our men and women in the forces to have the best equipment possible? That is the question Canadians need to ask themselves.

Francis Scarpaleggia Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

Mr. Speaker, a national newspaper editorial came down hard on the Minister of Public Safety today. In relation to Bill C-30, the editorial states, “This type of legislation brings us one step closer to George Orwell's dystopian vision of a totalitarian state that keeps its citizens under constant surveillance”. The editorial goes on to say that there is no evidence the new law will achieve its public policy objective.

Why is the minister threatening civil liberties without solid evidence of the need to do so?

Vic Toews Minister of Public Safety

Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago the member's party brought forward the predecessor bill. What we have done is we have refined it to ensure there are privacy protections, that any observations of people's personal web surfing habits are in fact authorized by a judge.

Francis Scarpaleggia Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

Mr. Speaker, under section 184 of the Criminal Code, the government already has the power to intercept communications without a warrant when lives are at risk, in order to prevent a terrorist attack, for example. What is more, criminals will be able to install encryption software, which will allow them to get around the law.

Is that why some of the minister's officials denounced in writing some of his arguments to justify his bill? Again, why is the minister jeopardizing civil liberties when nothing really seems to justify it?

Vic Toews Minister of Public Safety

Mr. Speaker, we have put into place a mechanism by which police will have to go to a judge to get the authority for a warrant before any intrusive action is taken. Not only that, but there is an accountability system where all of the information that the police acquire, in terms of the indicators, are then compiled in a report presented to all the ministers and to the privacy commissioners.

Hedy Fry Vancouver Centre, BC

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court has ruled that those accused of crimes must be tried within a reasonable time or be set free.

The government's crime bill creates new offences that would add greatly to the already lengthy backlog awaiting trial. It takes a special brand of incompetence to develop a justice bill that would grind the system to a halt and allow more criminals to walk free.

Why will the government not listen to the experts and rethink its narrow ideological approach to justice in Canada?

Rob Nicholson Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may have forgotten we have brought forward legislation already to assist with the backlogs in courts, getting rid of the two-for-one credit that was completely supported by provincial attorneys general.

This bill is very specific. The bill goes after those who sexually molest children, people with child pornography, people in the business of drug trafficking.

I urge her to go back to British Columbia and talk with law enforcement agencies. They will confirm that drug trafficking is a problem in this country that has to be addressed, and that is what we are doing.

Joe Oliver Minister of Natural Resources

Mr. Speaker, this government has spent over $10 billion investing in clean energy, alternative energy. We are proud to continue to do that.

However, we are also proud to support an industry which will create $3 trillion in economic activity, hundreds of billions of dollars for government services to Canadians. This is a government which supports employment, over 700,000 jobs a year over the next 25 years.

Megan Leslie Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, the minister vilifies his critics, but he is willing to spend thousands of taxpayer dollars to sponsor a retreat for his oil industry friends.

The PMO has told the minister to believe in climate change, but clearly he does not believe it is actually a problem.

The Conservatives' inaction on climate change hurts Canada's reputation. That is the message from his own diplomats in Europe and from industry. These are his friends, not the so-called radicals the minister imagines are hiding under his bed at night.

Will he take the advice of his friends and clean up his act, yes or no?

Joe Oliver Minister of Natural Resources

Mr. Speaker, the condescension and sarcasm will not change the facts. In its ongoing battle against jobs, the economy and the national interest, the NDP takes the side of foreigners against the side of Canadians.

The fuel quality directive, which is the subject of that particular meeting, is an unscientific--