Debates of March 29th, 2012

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

Mr. Speaker, as I stated all week, our government recently announced long-term stable funding for the provinces and the territories that will see transfers reach a historic level of $40 billion by the end of the decade.

The NDP can talk a good game, but when it comes to health care, let us take a look at the record. Here are some of the health initiatives the NDP voted against. First of all, there were the health transfers, first nations health initiatives, first nations health infrastructure, addictions treatment programs, telehealth and research, just to name a few examples of what the NDP did not support.

Libby Davies Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, of course the Prime Minister never campaigned on his reckless health care cuts because he knew that Canadians would not stand for it. In fact he promised to protect health care transfers—

The Speaker Andrew Scheer

Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver East has the floor.

Libby Davies Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the first chance he got, the Prime Minister is slashing health care funding and wreaking havoc with our health care system.

What does the Prime Minister say to Canadians who still will not be able to find a doctor or who believed his phony claim that Conservatives would protect our health care system?

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

Mr. Speaker, our government announced a long-term stable funding arrangement with the provinces and territories and 6% increases. By the end of the decade, that budget will be $40 billion.

Again let me list some of the examples of initiatives in health care that the NDP voted against: suicide prevention research; personalized medical care; autism research initiatives; consumer products safety initiatives; health products initiatives; Telehealth; addictions programs; first nations health infrastructure; first nations health initiatives; and the list goes on.

Stephen Harper Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure anybody alive can square all the circles over in that corner of the House.

In terms of the specific request, I note today that the estimates put out by the United States with regard to the costs of this plane are well within the contingencies established by the Department of National Defence.

However, as the member knows well, the government has not yet signed a contract and retains considerable flexibility on that matter.

Bob Rae Toronto Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, in the early eighties we started out with 120 CF-18s when the order was first allowed.

Bob Rae Toronto Centre, ON

It was 138. Now we have 80 with respect to the number that is there.

The question becomes a critical one, and it is still in place, it is still there and it still cannot be answered.

How can the Prime Minister ensure that the statements made by the three individuals I have named, himself, the Minister of National Defence and the general in charge of the CDS? How can he be sure that in fact we will have an F-35, or whatever plane, within the budgetary amounts on schedule with—

Stephen Harper Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what position exactly the leader of the Liberal Party is advocating, but this government's position is that we will replace the CF-18 when that airplane begins to reach the end of its useful life at the end of the decade. We will ensure that our men and women in uniform have the best equipment possible.

Bob Rae Toronto Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, when a Liberal government minister went to a fishing camp, the Prime Minister, who was then an opposition member, was the first one to demand that minister's resignation. He asked why the minister would not do the honourable thing under the circumstances.

Therefore, we should put the very same question to the Prime Minister. What has changed? We now have two clear examples of ethics issues involving the Minister of Industry. Why is he still in cabinet?

Stephen Harper Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that question. I am not aware of any connection with contracts and government business here.

David Christopherson Hamilton Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, today at the procedure and House affairs committee, the Chief Electoral Officer said, “Any action taken to deliberately misdirect electors and interfere with their right to vote under the constitution and the Elections Act is a serious offence....that is totally unacceptable in a modern democracy”. He also went on to say that any attempt to misdirect voters was an absolutely outrageous attempt to thwart our electoral process. Yet the government continues to characterize all this as just opposition smear tactics.

The government cannot have it both ways. Which is it? Does it think that this is all just games or does it believe there is a serious issue here that needs getting to the bottom of?