House of Commons Hansard #100 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was financial.

Topics

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Outremont
Québec

NDP

Thomas Mulcair Leader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, if the Conservatives are so confident that the F-35s meet the operational requirements, they should be willing to table the full list in the House today. Even when they are rigging the process, they cannot get a plane that meets Canada's needs. It is way over budget and they do not even have any guarantee of proper industrial benefits for Canada, one of the leading aerospace countries in the world.

When are the Conservatives going to show some basic competence with public money and have an open, transparent, public competition to replace the CF-18s?

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Calgary Southeast
Alberta

Conservative

Jason Kenney Minister of Citizenship

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. If the NDP had its way, there would be no replacement for the CF-18. We do need a replacement for our men and women in uniform.

As a country, as a responsible ally, we need a replacement for that fleet. We have pursued that for now 15 years under two different governments. There was a selection process. We have already outlined enormous industrial benefits right across Canada. Thousands of jobs will be created through this important acquisition.

We do commit to doing this within budget, maintaining the flexibility that we require to achieve that objective.

Pensions
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Outremont
Québec

NDP

Thomas Mulcair Leader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, we will see what the Auditor General thinks about that. But since we are talking about budget decisions, other decisions have been rather strange. For instance, the Prime Minister decided to go to Switzerland to announce to Canada's seniors that their old age security would no longer be the same.

The eligibility age would be increased to 67, without any logical explanation, since all indicators show that the system is viable. However, as with the F-35s, the Conservatives are ignoring the facts and showing utter contempt for the concept of sound fiscal management.

The Conservatives never gave any indication that they were going to touch pensions, so why attack current and future pensioners?

Pensions
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Calgary Southeast
Alberta

Conservative

Jason Kenney Minister of Citizenship

Mr. Speaker, it is becoming increasingly clear that the NDP has never considered the future of our social programs, including old age security.

We are moving from a time when there were seven workers for every pensioner to a time when there will be only two workers for every pensioner. The life expectancy of Canadians is increasing, and we need to reflect that reality, just as all other developed countries have done, by making changes to secure the future of our programs for seniors.

Pensions
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

NDP

Libby Davies Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives said nothing to Canadians about their attack on OAS in the last election. In fact, the Prime Minister promised a steady as it goes approach. Instead, the Conservatives are slashing retirement security for families and downloading billions to provinces. Seniors are going to have work years longer. That is not what the Prime Minister campaigned on.

Why are Conservatives targeting future seniors with their attack on OAS? Why did they not come clean about it with Canadians in the last election?

Pensions
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Simcoe—Grey
Ontario

Conservative

Kellie Leitch Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to speculate on the budget, as I said yesterday. Let us be very clear. We are trying to ensure that OAS is sustainable for the future and that future generations of Canadians have an opportunity to access OAS. Old age security will become unsustainable on its current path. Ignoring this actually puts future generations of Canadians at risk.

We are focused on ensuring we have a retirement income security system that works for Canadians, unlike the NDP.

Health
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

NDP

Libby Davies Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, they never once mentioned this in their campaign. Why not? They have not answered that.

OAS is not their only target. During the last campaign, the Prime Minister said, “We are planning on a six-per-cent ongoing increase for health transfers. We have been very consistent on this”.

However, after the election the Conservatives decided to break this promise and shortchange provinces by $31 billion. This will hurt our health care services. Why are they breaking their promise and downloading billions of new costs onto the provinces?

Health
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Nunavut
Nunavut

Conservative

Leona Aglukkaq Minister of Health and Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to a universal publicly funded health care system. Again, unlike the previous Liberal government, which gutted health care transfers, we have actually increased funding to record levels. We have announced a long-term stable arrangement with the provinces and the territories that will see transfers reach historic levels of $40 billion by the end of the decade.

Air Canada
Oral Questions

March 27th, 2012 / 2:20 p.m.

Liberal

Bob Rae Toronto Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, when Air Canada was privatized under a previous Conservative government, the deputy prime minister of the day, Mr. Mazankowski, said, “The Act would have to be amended if there were going to be any modification concerning the transfer of AIR CANADA's Overhaul Centres to another location”.

That is a very clear indication as to what the deputy prime minister of the day said was in the law and the protection provided to workers.

I would like to ask the government spokesman today if he could tell us this. Does he agree or does he disagree with the statement that was made by the deputy prime minister?

Air Canada
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Calgary Southeast
Alberta

Conservative

Jason Kenney Minister of Citizenship

Mr. Speaker, first of all, we obviously regret, seriously, all of us, all parties, the loss of these jobs. It is very unfortunate for the workers affected.

However, let us be clear. The Minister of Transport has called for legal advice in respect of the obligations that may exist. He has also asked the transport committee of this place to study the issue, to call the parties together, to get a full and transparent view of the views of all of those concerned.

Air Canada
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Liberal

Bob Rae Toronto Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that, by the time the government gets around to doing anything about it, these jobs will have long been gone to El Salvador or somewhere else. That is the problem with the government's answer.

The government spent $300 million moving a military base from Dubai to Kuwait because it alleged it would be protecting, in the words of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, tens of thousands of jobs in Canada. The government cannot avoid its direct responsibility with respect to what is happening to Air Canada.

Air Canada is the government's baby. Aveos is Air Canada's baby. When is the Government of Canada going to take some responsibility—

Air Canada
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear!

Air Canada
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Calgary Southeast
Alberta

Conservative

Jason Kenney Minister of Citizenship

Mr. Speaker, again, we all regret when there is any loss of jobs. The reality, though, is that in the past two years we have seen the creation of more than 610,000 net new jobs. The leader of the third party would have us increase taxes on employers and businesses in Canada, which would have the result of killing hundreds of thousands of jobs, just as he did when he was premier of Ontario and had the worst economic record in the history of that province. Thankfully, he will not be able to do to Canada what he did to Ontario.

Ethics
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Liberal

Bob Rae Toronto Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. Yesterday, his defence regarding Ms. Dawson's decision was that no one was really helped. That is almost like saying yes, he did something bad, but no one was hurt. That makes no sense.

Now we have a new story: the issue of a hunting camp in Quebec, where the minister was a guest of Mr. Aubut, who just happened to have a specific reason for wanting to get the minister's ear.

How can the minister explain this conflict—

Ethics
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Conservative