House of Commons Hansard #139 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was fisheries.

Topics

Pensions
Oral Questions

2:45 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, it feels a little like Groundhog Day. I want to say, yet again, in order to ensure that we have a sustainable social system, we are gradually increasing the age from 65 to 67, from 2023 to 2029. We want to ensure there are sustainable social programs for Canadians.

With respect to the GIS, this government has been the one that has gradually and continually increased GIS to ensure that those low-income seniors have what they need.

Pensions
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

NDP

Irene Mathyssen London—Fanshawe, ON

Mr. Speaker, people currently paying into these systems are being hung out to dry. Alarm bells are ringing.

The head of the CPP Investment Board said that the Conservative's PRPP needed significant changes, that it would not get the job done. However, the Conservatives are not interested in the facts. They are using this Trojan Horse budget bill to undermine our social safety net.

When will the Conservatives start listening to the experts and the people of our country about what they want and need for decent retirement?

Pensions
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Macleod
Alberta

Conservative

Ted Menzies Minister of State (Finance)

Mr. Speaker, that hon. member does not even understand that Canadians do not contribute on an individual basis to OAS. I actually thought the NDP members understood this program. I guess that is why we have heard, and I hope it is wrong, that after question period when we vote on the pooled registered pension plan, a plan that all of the provinces support the framework going forward on, the NDP will vote against it.

It is absolutely unbelievable. We offer up something that would help Canadians and what do NDP members do? They vote against it.

The Economy
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Conservative

Costas Menegakis Richmond Hill, ON

Mr. Speaker, when our constituents turn on their TVs or read their newspapers, they can not help but hear what is currently taking place in Europe. After years of high levels of debt spending, many European countries are facing financial crisis. As this eventually could seriously impact the global economy, Canadians watch with concern. While the NDP might want to engage in reckless deficit spending and create bloated government bureaucracies, we see the cost of such fiscal irresponsibility.

Could the Minister of State for Finance please update Parliament on the latest developments on the situation in Europe?

The Economy
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Macleod
Alberta

Conservative

Ted Menzies Minister of State (Finance)

Mr. Speaker, it is a very serious situation that we are watching unfold in Europe. We are encouraging Europe to continue supporting itself, not with Canadian tax dollars but with its own money. It has the capacity and the capability to overwhelm this challenge. It is very important that it does.

We have consistently told the Europeans that they have the resources to solve this problem. We certainly hope they will move forward to a timely implementation of this. It is very important for them and it is important for the rest of the world.

Ethics
Oral Questions

June 12th, 2012 / 2:45 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister is in trouble these days, and even in hot water.

Information in the Ottawa Citizen indicates that tens of thousands of calls were made for him, in his riding, during the 2008 election campaign, except that this information does not appear in his election report. It is strange. However, telephone calls are made by local campaigns, are they not? Many pieces of the puzzle are missing here.

Will he do the only honourable thing and step aside until the authorities can get to the bottom of this controversy?

Ethics
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Nepean—Carleton
Ontario

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is still making baseless allegations. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister did his job properly and we support him. He has already given the information to Elections Canada.

The member opposite made donations to an openly separatist party, Québec solidaire. Does he continue to support Québec solidaire? Is it still the provincial equivalent to the NDP?

Ethics
Oral Questions

2:50 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, trying to change the subject and sending someone to bat to defend the member does not answer the questions we are asking.

Let us get back to the issue at hand. I am not trying to put the cart before the horse; the presumption of innocence still applies, but the allegations against the hon. member for Peterborough are extremely serious.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister says that he will submit new documents. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities says that all the documents have already been submitted. Who is telling the truth?

Once again, will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister do the honourable thing and step aside during the Elections Canada investigation?

Ethics
Oral Questions

2:50 p.m.

Nepean—Carleton
Ontario

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that question, but the hon. member has not answered the question posed to him.

Québec solidaire is a party that says the PQ and the Bloc Québécois are not separatist enough. The hon. member gave donations totalling $3,700, including $150 which he gave while sitting in a supposedly federal Parliament.

I invite the member to stand in this House and confirm if he continues to be an active financial supporter of the hardest line separatist party in Quebec.

Ethics
Oral Questions

2:50 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, given the seriousness of the issue, I would suggest the member for Peterborough get a more qualified advocate than the conspiracy theorist from Nepean, because it has been over a week since the election investigation in Peterborough story broke and they still cannot seem to get their stories straight.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister has told Canadians that he will be coming forward with all of the documents soon, but the member from Nepean keeps saying that all of the documents were handed over four years ago. This is a question about the accuracy of the documents and his credibility. When will he bring forward those documents?

Ethics
Oral Questions

2:50 p.m.

Nepean—Carleton
Ontario

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, we have already answered all of those questions, but the NDP has not answered the question that I just twice posed. Perhaps the member who just stood could turn to his seatmate and ask him if he continues to support Québec solidaire, a party to which he gave donations.

While he is at it, he might ask his leader how much in illegal union donations did the NDP accept and how much is it being forced to pay back.

Ethics
Oral Questions

2:50 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the eagerness of the member from Nepean to get in the story and change the channel with his little partisan ankle biter routine, but he is not helping the member for Peterborough. We now know thousands of calls were made into Peterborough in the 2008 election and yet no record apparently exists. Where are those documents?

Unfortunately, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister has been compromised. The government can treat this as a joke, or it can take it with the seriousness it deserves. I am asking the hon. member to do the right thing for his party and for Parliament and stand aside while this investigation is ongoing. Will he do that?

Ethics
Oral Questions

2:50 p.m.

Nepean—Carleton
Ontario

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, let us observe the difference here.

The hon. member gave all of the documents that Elections Canada requested almost four years ago. They were audited. They were verified. He has heard nothing from Elections Canada ever since.

On that side, they accepted donations from unions in clear contravention of the law. They were investigated, it was confirmed, and they were found guilty. Now they need to stand and explain to Canadians how many illegal union donations they accepted and how much they paid back.

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:50 p.m.

Liberal

Marc Garneau Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, the government is so incompetent on the F-35 that we are not going to know the cost until October. Oops, there goes point three on the seven point plan, which the government has bragged so much about.

The government decided to buy this airplane two years ago, and we still do not know the cost. What a way to run government. Normally when one buys something, one knows the cost; otherwise it is not very smart to come out and talk about buying it.

Why is the government so incompetent? The taxpayers are getting soaked.

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Edmonton—Spruce Grove
Alberta

Conservative

Rona Ambrose Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women

Mr. Speaker, let me remind the hon. member that no money has been spent on the acquisition of fighter aircraft. What we did see, though, is the Department of National Defence did put forward cost estimates on the F-35, which the Auditor General did not think were accurate. We agree with the Auditor General. We think more due diligence needs to be done. On that note, we have put forward a seven point plan to meet the Auditor General's recommendations.

I will not support tabling the updated cost estimates from the Department of National Defence until they are independently validated and verified. The secretariat has made the recommendation that it needs more time, and we agree with it.