House of Commons Hansard #123 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was rights.

Topics

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Vaughan
Ontario

Conservative

Julian Fantino Associate Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, that premise is absolutely absurd. We accept the conclusions of the Auditor General, as we have stated. There is an action plan being implemented. We will await the recommendations and make decisions based upon those recommendations by the secretariat.

It is really regrettable that so many things are taken out of context and put forward as fact when, in fact, they are not.

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:35 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Kellway Beaches—East York, ON

Mr. Speaker, the associate minister should connect with the Minister of National Defence , because the problem with that response is that the spending plans the defence ministry tabled last week were very specific: the plane, the F-35; the contractor, Lockheed Martin; and even a specific delivery date, 2017; this, after the Prime Minister himself claimed that no contract had been signed, no money had been spent, and no decision had yet been made.

Has the beleaguered defence minister informed his government that he still thinks he is buying these planes?

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Vaughan
Ontario

Conservative

Julian Fantino Associate Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, the government has clearly communicated that the budget has been set to replace Canada's aging CF-18s and we will stay within that budget. Canada has not signed a contract and has not spent any money on acquiring replacement aircraft.

We will not proceed with a purchase until the seven-step action plan has been outlined and completed and developmental work is sufficiently advanced.

Political Party Financing
Oral Questions

2:35 p.m.

NDP

Robert Aubin Trois-Rivières, QC

Mr. Speaker, it seems there is no stopping the Conservatives when it comes to filling the party's coffers, but never would I have thought they could stoop to using sick children.

Let me explain: a resident of Trois-Rivières received a phone call and agreed to make a donation to the Shriners, a very noble cause if ever there was one. When he was sending his cheque, he checked the return envelope that was provided and lo and behold it was addressed to the Conservative Party in Toronto.

Do the Conservatives find these telemarketing practices acceptable?

Political Party Financing
Oral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Nepean—Carleton
Ontario

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, no, we are not aware of the alleged facts in this specific case.

That being said, the Conservative Party abides by political party financing legislation. Clearly, there was some sort of administrative error in this case.

Political Party Financing
Oral Questions

2:35 p.m.

NDP

Robert Aubin Trois-Rivières, QC

Mr. Speaker, while we are waiting for a more complete answer or some corrections, it might be best for us to look at the matter further.

The calls did not come from any old telemarketing firm. They came from Xentel, a former U.S. company that has already been involved in and found guilty of abusive practices. In 2010, it merged with the Conservatives' telemarketing company of choice, RMG. That is a lot of coincidences.

Would they have us believe that the envelopes simply got mixed up? How many other people were victims of this scheme?

Are the Conservatives going to hold these unscrupulous companies to account?

Political Party Financing
Oral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Nepean—Carleton
Ontario

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, clearly, the New Democrats are starting to make unfounded allegations.

It is not surprising that they would do this. They are trying to change the subject. Just last week their leader made an embarrassing gaffe in which he tried to divide the country by calling our natural resources sector a disease. He said that his plan to create jobs in Ontario is to kill them in western Canada.

Canadians will not accept that approach. Canadians believe the prosperity of one is the prosperity for all. We believe in one united Canada. That is how we govern this country. That is what the Canadian people expect.

Political Party Financing
Oral Questions

2:35 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, what Canadians believe in is honest and credible fundraising, and they have not heard that from the government side.

We cannot seem to catch up with all of the Conservatives' dubious tactics, but hitting up the Shriners, what is with that?

Diverting money that was intended for charity is a very serious allegation. I hope the Conservatives would understand that, because it is a question of trust. It is a question of ethics. At the very least, it is a question of competency.

Would the government agree to a full review of Conservative Party fundraising to ensure that Canadians could have some level of trust in what the Conservative Party is up to?

Political Party Financing
Oral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Nepean—Carleton
Ontario

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, there appears to have been an error. We are not aware of the facts surrounding this incident. That being said, we follow all of the laws and conduct all of our fundraising in an honest and ethical fashion.

It is not surprising that the NDP members would want to change the subject. Last week, their leader referred to an industry that employs hundreds of thousands of Canadians as an illness. He honestly believes that the only way for someone to get hired in Ontario is for someone else to get fired in western Canada.

That kind of divide and conquer strategy will never be accepted by this government or by our country.

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence clearly has some challenges with truth in numbers. First, he lowballs the F-35 by some $10 billion and calls it differences in accounting. Then he disguises $105 million in vehicle purchases and calls them transmission parts.

On national radio he lowballed the cost of the Libyan mission by $50 million. The Liberal Party has supported the mission in each vote and at every stage. Why can the minister not respect our military and its supporters with truthfulness in costs?

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Central Nova
Nova Scotia

Conservative

Peter MacKay Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we have done at the Department of National Defence under this government. We have seen the budget rise by over $1 billion annually.

With respect to the costs that he is referring to, he is doing what he has been doing for some time now, deliberately giving misinformation, deliberately attributing things to this government that he has in fact said.

I have been nothing but upfront and honest on this file. The figures that were given in October were the figures to date. The figures provided last week were the final cost figures.

I will give the hon. member numbers: third party, third row.

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Liberal

Marc Garneau Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has a serious credibility problem when he talks about costs. We know how he estimated the F-35s. He underestimated them by $10 billion, possibly even $25 billion.

Recently, he disguised the acquisition of military vehicles worth $105 million by calling them “transmission parts”.

Now, of course, we know he is underestimating the cost of the war in Libya.

Where is this government’s accountability? How is this minister still sitting in the front row? It is time to send him off to the back benches.

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Central Nova
Nova Scotia

Conservative

Peter MacKay Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, that is still false, as it has always been.

We provided the cost of the Libya mission in October. It was correct. We provided the cost of certain equipment for the Canadian Forces. It was correct.

Clearly, the hon. member does not want to accept reality.

While I am at it, it is very unfortunate that we have not seen the type of support and enthusiasm for the Canadian Forces while in opposition, because we certainly did not see it when the Liberals were in government.

Pensions
Oral Questions

May 14th, 2012 / 2:40 p.m.

Liberal

Judy Sgro York West, ON

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. forecasts that the F-35s will cost Canada over $40 billion. That is $25 billion more than the Conservatives claimed it would cost.

This same $25 billion could have funded the total old age pension of 160,000 low-income seniors for 25 years.

Why has the Conservative government chosen to sacrifice support for the lowest income seniors, while maintaining a “money is no object attitude” when it comes to the overruns on the F-35?

Pensions
Oral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Haldimand—Norfolk
Ontario

Conservative

Diane Finley Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development

Mr. Speaker, as a government, our number one priority is to protect the safety and security of Canadians. We are protecting their security by ensuring that the old age security system is sustainable, not just for today's seniors, who will see no cuts to their pensions, but also for future generations.

We also have an obligation to protect those people, to protect our men and women in uniform who stand out there to defend Canadian values right around the world. We will ensure that they too have the resources they need and the proper equipment to do their job safety and securely, unlike what happened to them under the Liberals, who spent no money on them in the decade of darkness.