House of Commons Hansard #140 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was yea.

Topics

Pensions
Oral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Andrew Scheer

Order, please.

The hon. member for Hochelaga.

Pensions
Oral Questions

2:35 p.m.

NDP

Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet Hochelaga, QC

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the Conservatives are saying, old age security has a proven track record. It is a viable system.

Maybe the Conservatives do not realize this, but for tens of thousands of low-income seniors, this program is the difference between living in dignity and living in poverty.

If the Conservatives' math is so reliable, then why are they unable to justify their decision to start stealing money from seniors in 2023, and not 2030 or 2050?

Pensions
Oral Questions

2:35 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, let me state once again, there will be no reductions in seniors' pensions.

In order to ensure the sustainability of OAS in the future, we are increasing the age from 65 to 67 over a gradual period of time, from 2023 to 2029. Our government is committed to sustainable social programs and a secure retirement for all Canadians.

Once again, I ask the NDP, why is it that we on this side of the House support sustainable social programs for this and future generations, and it does not?

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:40 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Speaker, the NDP respects Canadian seniors, and that is why we will not vote in favour of the budget.

The environment commissioner said that with Bill C-38, there would be only 20 to 30 federal environmental assessments a year.

These irresponsible cuts will allow pipelines to cross our rivers with virtually no safeguards. But Canadians are already carrying the weight of $7 billion in environmental debt.

Why add to the environmental debt of future generations? Why are the Conservatives so irresponsible?

The Environment
Oral Questions

June 13th, 2012 / 2:40 p.m.

Thornhill
Ontario

Conservative

Peter Kent Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, this is from a colleague who did not even bother to attend the committee.

Our goal in this government is to strengthen world-class protection of the environment, even as we make Canada the most attractive country in the world for resource investment and development. We will implement a policy of one proposal, one review in clearly defined time periods. We will strengthen environmental protection. We will make reviews of resource projects more predictable. We will reduce duplication. We will enhance consultations with aboriginal Canadians.

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:40 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Speaker, there are Conservative MPs who have actually read Bill C-38 and understand its implications. The hon. members for Wellington—Halton Hills and Dufferin—Caledon have demanded full environmental assessments for the Dufferin County megaquarry. They say that their constituents deserve no less than full environmental assessments.

We agree. In fact, we say that all Canadians have the right to full environmental assessments for these projects, all of them. However, these Conservative MPs will be forced tonight to vote for a bill that guts assessments.

Why are they increasing environmental risks? Why are they being so irresponsible to Canadians?

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Thornhill
Ontario

Conservative

Peter Kent Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, the project my colleague referred to is undergoing an environmental assessment under the responsible authority of the Government of Ontario.

At this point my officials have advised me that none of the triggers required to spark a federal intervention have been, or are likely to be, tripped.

Ethics
Oral Questions

2:40 p.m.

NDP

Alexandrine Latendresse Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives do not take anything seriously, not even the Elections Canada investigation of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister's election return.

Yesterday, my colleague from Nepean—Carleton kept handing us the same insipid line about how all of the documents were turned over and how everything else was made up.

Yesterday evening, we learned that the individual in question, the member for Peterborough, was still turning over new information. It seems that not everything has been revealed after all.

We are simply asking the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister to do the right thing while this matter is under investigation. When will he step down?

Ethics
Oral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Nepean—Carleton
Ontario

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, if the member keeps asking the same questions, she will keep getting the same answers.

The hon. member turned all of the documents over to Elections Canada nearly four years ago. He has won another election since then. Elections Canada has not asked him for any more information.

The New Democrats should be more open and transparent about telling Canadians how much union money they have accepted illegally and how much of that money they have paid back.

Ethics
Oral Questions

2:40 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, I love the political musings of the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton. I really do. I think he would make a great Republican blogger.

Unfortunately, he makes a pretty lousy defence attorney because he needs to get his story straight with his client. Yesterday and today he said that all of the documents have been provided. Yesterday the hon. member for Peterborough came forward and said that the $21,000 bill from Holinshed was not a real bill, just an invoice.

We are dealing with serious allegations. Will the hon. member stand up, fire his defence attorney and tell this House that he has been compromised? He needs to step down until this investigation is complete.

Ethics
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Nepean—Carleton
Ontario

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, not only has the hon. member given all the information required of a filing over to Elections Canada, not only have those filings been audited and verified by Elections Canada, not only has another election passed since that time, but he has also not even been contacted by Elections Canada in search of additional information.

By contrast, he has taken the stance that the NDP should come clean on the illegal union donations for which it was caught and for which it had to plead guilty. Now all that we ask is for the leader of the NDP to rise, explain how much illegal money his party took, and how much it gave back.

Ethics
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, in all fairness, I have to keep Band-Aids on my ankles from the partisan ankle biter trying to change the channel. What we have here—

Ethics
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Ethics
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Andrew Scheer

Order, please. I do not think referring to each other in that manner is helpful to the debate. I will ask the member to get to his question without using that type of characteristic.

Ethics
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, yesterday you thought it was okay, but I will accept your judgment on this.

What we are dealing with is a $21,000 bill that the Conservatives claim is a non-bill. Around this bill, we have personal cheques, cancelled cheques and refunded cheques. We have an investigation, lawsuits and court files. These are serious issues.

I ask the member for Peterborough to do the right thing and stand up and say that he will step down while this investigation is under way. That is what he needs to do.