House of Commons Hansard #77 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was investment.

Topics

International Trade
Oral Questions

2:35 p.m.

NDP

Jinny Sims Newton—North Delta, BC

Mr. Speaker, homework is always necessary and my colleagues should do theirs.

Today we hear reports that the government is looking to close trade offices and consulates in the United States. The Prime Minister, who is in China, is turning a blind eye to the potential problems with our closest trading partner.

Looking for new trading opportunities should not come at the cost of undermining our current relationship with the U.S. Why is the government so shortsighted? Why close these offices just as they are getting off the ground?

International Trade
Oral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Calgary East
Alberta

Conservative

Deepak Obhrai Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, that is pure speculation. As of yet, no decision has been made. Foreign Affairs and Canadian diplomats around the world will continue to do Canada proud by protecting Canada's interests and promoting Canadian values.

International Trade
Oral Questions

2:35 p.m.

NDP

Jinny Sims Newton—North Delta, BC

Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the government is failing Canadian businesses and is lacking a coherent vision. The Conservatives claim that their recent actions are meant to strengthen trade ties with the U.S. How can this be when closing these offices will create instability for Canadian businesses? These offices not only provide crucial services for businesses, but they also help Canadians travelling and living in the U.S.

Will the minister explain to Canadians why these important services are being compromised?

International Trade
Oral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Calgary East
Alberta

Conservative

Deepak Obhrai Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, I want to get it straight what the member is saying. The New Democrats are now saying that we should be promoting trade ties with the U.S.A. when they were the ones opposing the Keystone pipeline. They will need to make up their minds as to what they want to do.

However, as I said before, what she said is pure speculation. As of yet, no decision has been made.

National Defence
Oral Questions

February 9th, 2012 / 2:35 p.m.

NDP

Christine Moore Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, Great Britain recently announced that it will not make a decision about the F-35s before 2015. The United States confirmed that it will invest $2.8 billion to upgrade its aging F-16s while it waits for the F-35s. Australia will not commit to replacing its fighter jets until it knows when the F-35s will be delivered. The program is on increasingly shaky ground, and all of these countries have a plan B.

What is this government's plan B? Canadians want to know.

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Vaughan
Ontario

Conservative

Julian Fantino Associate Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, the Royal Canadian Air Force has flown CF-18s for 30 years and we are now working with our allies, involving Britain, to develop the aircraft that will replace them. Britain faces some unique challenges that all of us can well sympathize with. However, decisions are made based on the best possible information ongoing and we are monitoring the program.

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:35 p.m.

NDP

Christine Moore Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, this government is the only one that does not see all of the red flags: rising costs, safety issues, the list goes on and on. A Rideau Institute report released yesterday lays out the flaws. The report quotes the Pentagon's procurement chief, who said that things are messed up. The report also states that, given all of the delays, the F-35 could be obsolete by the time it is operational, if that ever happens.

Why not unveil the plan B the government was bragging about not long ago?

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Vaughan
Ontario

Conservative

Julian Fantino Associate Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, the report to which the member opposite is referring was authored by a failed NDP candidate and the Rideau Institute whose bias is well-known.

Canada's participation in the joint strike fighter program has already resulted in millions of dollars of profit to Canadian corporations and an industry that employs some 80,000 Canadians.

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:35 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Kellway Beaches—East York, ON

Mr. Speaker, the report to which my colleague is referring appeared recently as a peer-reviewed study in the Canadian Foreign Policy Journal. It highlights yet again the many technical shortcomings and enormous cost risks of the F-35. The report makes clear that the F-35 is best described as an enormously expensive and troubled experiment. After all, it was just last month that we found out that the F-35 can even fly at night.

Why is the minister exposing Canadians to such enormous financial risks? When will he do the responsible thing and put this out to tender?

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Vaughan
Ontario

Conservative

Julian Fantino Associate Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, that premise is absolutely false. The member opposite is referring to a failed NDP candidate who wrote this report, critical of everything that is holy and decent about this government's efforts to provide our military men and women with the resources that—

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Andrew Scheer

Order, please. I see the hon. associate minister has more to say. The House should turn its attention to the minister so he can finish his response.

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Conservative

Julian Fantino Vaughan, ON

Mr. Speaker, that report is absolutely biased. It has no objectivity whatsoever. It denigrates everything we do in order to help our military men and women do their job, look after jobs for Canadians and do the absolute right thing for the men and women doing these missions.

Pensions
Oral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Liberal

Judy Sgro York West, ON

Mr. Speaker, during the 2004 campaign, the Prime Minister said that he would never raise the age of retirement to 67. In the campaign of 2006, he said that taxation of income trusts was robbing the nest eggs of our seniors. Do members remember that comment? During the 2008 and 2011 campaigns, he again claimed that transfers to seniors would never be cut.

As he did not keep his promises in 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2011, how can any Canadian trust a Prime Minister who continually breaks his so-called solemn promises?

Pensions
Oral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Haldimand—Norfolk
Ontario

Conservative

Diane Finley Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development

Mr. Speaker, I recall a promise by the Liberals back in the 1990s to eliminate the GST and yet we still have it.

During four different campaigns, the Liberals promised a national child care plan. The reason they kept promising was that they did not deliver it. By contrast, we promised to reduce the—