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

Foreign Affairs
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

Mr. Speaker, that is not the message Canadians are getting.

Yesterday, the Minister of National Defence acted irresponsibly by suggesting that the Air Canada Centre was a prime target for terrorists. Then the Minister of Public Safety soon followed with his own hypothetical scenarios about planes full of Newfoundlanders being blown up. All of that to back up the government's irresponsible message to other countries that Canada is in the market for information based on torture.

The government should oppose torture, no question about it. When will it rescind the directive?

Foreign Affairs
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Central Nova
Nova Scotia

Conservative

Peter MacKay Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear again, Canada does not condone torture and does not use torture. However, Canada will use information to save lives.

Let us talk about logic. Yesterday, the NDP justice critic stood outside the House and basically accepted the position of the government. Then he came back inside the House and tried to suggest some other high-handed position. That is something that confuses Canadians.

Our position is clear. Our position sends a strong message to those working in the defence and security sector and to our allies.

Foreign Affairs
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is not a message from Canadians. That is not where we are at. The Conservatives have lost their way on this point.

The government is now saying that torture is okay. So much for being the law and order government. In this case it may as well torture people right here in Canada by the message its sending out.

Then yesterday, or the day before, the Minister of Justice was out publicly advocating for people to shoot warning shots. We heard that prisoners should hang themselves. We heard that from the Conservatives. People should shoot from the hip. Torture is okay. Those are the messages we are getting. This is not the wild west; this is Canada.

Foreign Affairs
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Central Nova
Nova Scotia

Conservative

Peter MacKay Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, what a litany of misinformation and convoluted facts. The NDP justice critic's words yesterday were so twisted it would take a troop of boy scouts to try to figure out all the knots that he tied himself into.

The reality is Canadians know exactly where the government stands, so do our defence and security officials. That is what is important. That rhetoric coming from the member opposite is not helping to keep Canadians safe in Canada.

Pensions
Oral Questions

February 9th, 2012 / 2:20 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Speaker, according to the Royal Bank of Canada, Canadians have less and less confidence in the current economy and thus they have less and less confidence in this government's policies. The Conservatives want to hit Canadians where it hurts: old age security. Meanwhile, they are giving away $3 billion in tax gifts—money that could be used to pay old age security benefits to 462,000 seniors.

Rather than causing people anxiety, will the Conservatives finally answer our question? Will they or will they not increase the retirement age?

Pensions
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Haldimand—Norfolk
Ontario

Conservative

Diane Finley Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development

Mr. Speaker, we are ensuring that our old age security system is here for our current retirees and for future generations. It is very important to protect these benefits. That is why we have to act now to protect our future.

Pensions
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the government's own actuarial tables tell him the Conservatives are wrong, that what they need to do is continue to reinforce the pension system, not take it away from Canadians.

The Prime Minister made a promise to preserve OAS in 2005. At the time, he said that the Liberals had a hidden agenda to raise the retirement age. As the Conservative election leaflets said, “There is no greater fraud than a promise not kept”.

Why did the Prime Minister break his promise and why is he betraying Canadian seniors?

Pensions
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Haldimand—Norfolk
Ontario

Conservative

Diane Finley Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development

Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister is doing is protecting our seniors and retirees by protecting and ensuring the viability of the old age security program. If we do nothing, as the opposition suggests, the cost of the old age security program will be too high for the number of workers who will make up the labour force and who will be paying taxes at that time.

We must protect people, and that is what we are doing.

Pensions
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Liberal

Bob Rae Toronto Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, in Guelph, in 2005, the Prime Minister was very explicit. When he was campaigning, he said:

My government will fully preserve the Old Age Security, the Guaranteed Income Supplement, and the Canada Pension Plan and all projected future increases to these programs.

Now it was also the same speech in which he promised solemnly that he would not tax income trusts. We know what happened to that promise.

How can the Conservatives stand in their places today and pretend that the Prime Minister of Canada did not specifically promise to do exactly the opposite of what he said to the people of Switzerland in Davos?

Pensions
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Central Nova
Nova Scotia

Conservative

Peter MacKay Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, there he is again on his high dudgeon, trying to hold himself out as some kind of an economic expert.

Our government has started a reasonable debate on an issue that has very serious consequences for the future of our country and for seniors. We are talking about how to preserve and sustain old age security well into the future for the current seniors and those who may need this in the future. That is what is taking place here.

Old age security will be unsustainable on the future path we are on. Many independent experts have said this. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is not—

Pensions
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Andrew Scheer

The hon. member for Toronto Centre.

Pensions
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Liberal

Bob Rae Toronto Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of National Defence is saying is exactly the opposite of what the Parliamentary Budget Officer said about the issue of sustainability.

However, one question the government cannot avoid is in regards to its duplicity and that of the Conservative Party. We are talking about out-and-out duplicity. The Conservatives said the exact opposite during the election campaign. In an election campaign, the Conservatives are prepared to promise all sorts of things, and when they form a government, they follow the practice of the Reform Party. That is this government's true record, a record of reactions—

Pensions
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Conservative

Pensions
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Central Nova
Nova Scotia

Conservative

Peter MacKay Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, the member is always in a chameleon position, depending upon the issue or the party of the day.

We do know that ignoring this problem is a dangerous path to follow. Everyone agrees with this. In fact, when people look at an independent source, the director of the Rotman International Centre for Pension Management, they have to make changes. We cannot put our heads in the sand. Proposals should include looking at raising retirement age.

The member opposite is burying his head in the sand when it comes to the economy, the same way he did when he was premier of Ontario.

Justice
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Liberal

Bob Rae Toronto Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to get the Minister of Justice, in this instance, to clarify the comments he made yesterday in committee about the appropriate use of force when people go on one's property.

The Minister of Justice stated that, in his opinion, when faced with a hypothetical, he thought it would be okay for a property owner to shoot a few warning shots in the air or perhaps even over the head of the perpetrator.

I would like to ask the minister this very simple question. What is he going to say to the family of the little girl crossing the road down the street when somebody fires a warning shot at somebody entering his or her property? Does he not understand the danger of promoting vigilante justice in our society?