House of Commons Hansard #142 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.

Topics

Citizenship and Immigration
Oral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Calgary Southeast
Alberta

Conservative

Jason Kenney Minister of Citizenship

Mr. Speaker, as I just said, with the changes to the interim federal health program, asylum seekers and resettled refugees will continue to receive basic health insurance. That same level of service is available to all Canadian taxpayers. We are ending supplementary insurance, which is not available to Canadians.

Does the NDP think that visitors and refugees who have been turned down by our legal system should receive supplementary benefits in addition to the basic insurance?

Citizenship and Immigration
Oral Questions

2:55 p.m.

NDP

Jinny Sims Newton—North Delta, BC

Mr. Speaker, the minister's attitude is shameful. Sitting here, I am wondering if we should believe the minister or the doctors? I will take the doctors any day.

On this side of the House we believe that no one in Canada should have to choose between food and health care. No one should have to wonder if their sick child will be denied treatment because of the balance of their bank account. Canadians expect leadership to improve access to health care, not senseless cuts to limit it.

Today we stand with doctors and refugees across the country and ask when the minister will reverse these cuts.

Citizenship and Immigration
Oral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Calgary Southeast
Alberta

Conservative

Jason Kenney Minister of Citizenship

Mr. Speaker, unlike the NDP, this government stands with Canadians, Canadians who pay taxes to provide generous benefits to refugees. We will continue to do so. We will continue to meet our humanitarian obligation to provide the same basic package of health care insurance to the vast majority of asylum claimants and to resettled refugees that are available taxpaying Canadians through provincial health care programs.

What we will no longer do is provide supplementary extra benefits that are not available to taxpaying Canadians. Nor will we provide health insurance to failed rejected asylum claimants who should no longer be--

Citizenship and Immigration
Oral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Andrew Scheer

The hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore.

Human Rights
Oral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Conservative

Bernard Trottier Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

Mr. Speaker, with Iran beating its political prisoners and innocent Syrians enduring the Assad regime, Canadians expect the United Nations to devote its time and resources to serious violations of human rights.

And yet, in a speech this morning, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights felt the need to criticize Quebec's Bill 78, which was democratically adopted by an elected assembly.

Can the minister tell the House how Canada is reacting to these disturbing comments?

Human Rights
Oral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Mégantic—L'Érable
Québec

Conservative

Christian Paradis Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture)

Mr. Speaker, our government respects the jurisdiction of each province, and especially the right of the Quebec National Assembly to make its own laws for its own territory.

We have a robust judicial system here in this country, and citizens are able to contest laws if they think they are unconstitutional or otherwise flawed. It is quite strange that the high commissioner would say such things, given the situations in Syria, Iran, Belarus and Sri Lanka.

Although some NDP members have participated in the student conflict, we believe—and hope—that the NDP will join us in denouncing the statement by the high commissioner and affirming the right of the province to adopt its—

Human Rights
Oral Questions

3 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Andrew Scheer

The hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

National Defence
Oral Questions

3 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

Mr. Speaker, the much ballyhooed seven point action plan for the F-35s is now down to six points and a maybe.

Apparently, the minister does not want to disclose the price of the F-35 because “we want to get it right”, this time.

I have two questions. First, does that mean that the minister never did get it right in the first place? Second, does the minister accept that the American price of $137 million per plane will in fact be the Canadian price?

National Defence
Oral Questions

3 p.m.

Edmonton—Spruce Grove
Alberta

Conservative

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

No, Mr. Speaker. What it means is that we are following the recommendations of the Auditor General and he recommended that the Department of National Defence table updated cost estimates.

We have gone further than that. We have said that we want those cost estimates to be independently validated.

The National Fighter Procurement Secretariat recommended, on Wednesday, that it be given more time to provide a complete and independently verified update. We agreed with this approach and have given the secretariat more time to do its work.

Citizenship and Immigration
Oral Questions

June 18th, 2012 / 3 p.m.

NDP

José Nunez-Melo Laval, QC

Mr. Speaker, every year, thousands of immigrants choose to make their life in the city of Laval. It is their home port.

Yet the Conservatives want to make life more difficult for all current and future claimants. Laval needs immigrants in order to keep developing. With Bills C-38 and C-31, the Conservatives are putting the brakes on Laval's prosperity and economic development.

Why are they attacking immigrants?

Citizenship and Immigration
Oral Questions

3 p.m.

Calgary Southeast
Alberta

Conservative

Jason Kenney Minister of Citizenship

Mr. Speaker, that question is rather special. Indeed, the government has noticed that immigration in Canada is at an all-time high and is the highest per capita in the developed world.

Quebec selects its own economic immigrants under the Canada-Quebec agreement on immigration. That being said, Bill C-31 is not about immigration. It addresses the abuse of our asylum system and human smuggling.

Do the hon. member and the NDP believe that Laval's economy depends on bogus asylum claims and illegal immigration? I do not. I believe that the people of Laval agree with this government: we need to fight human smuggling and the abuse of our asylum system—

Citizenship and Immigration
Oral Questions

3 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Andrew Scheer

The hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans.

Library of Parliament
Oral Questions

3 p.m.

Conservative

Royal Galipeau Ottawa—Orléans, ON

Mr. Speaker, the Library of Parliament is an institution that goes back to the 1790s when the legislative libraries of Upper and Lower Canada were created.

To this day, the professionals of the Library do exceptional work to facilitate our tasks as part of ontarians.

The library houses an outstanding collection of books and documents that illustrate Parliament's rich history, as well as our country's majestic geography and enviable economy.

With that in mind, could the government House leader please give the House an update on the status of the search for the next parliamentary librarian?

Library of Parliament
Oral Questions

3 p.m.

York—Simcoe
Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans for his excellent work and for his support of libraries and librarians.

I am pleased to announce that today the government nominated Sonia L'Heureux as the new Parliamentary Librarian. Ms. L'Heureux is currently the Assistant Parliamentary Librarian and provides an exceptional and professional service to parliamentarians. She is the perfect person to run the Library of Parliament. We are pleased that she has accepted this nomination.

Employment Insurance
Oral Questions

3 p.m.

NDP

Raymond Côté Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives did not respond to all of the questions regarding the employment insurance reform because they slapped a gag order on all steps of the process and prevented proper study in committee.

I will give them another chance to explain.

What will happen to someone who loses his job and is forced to accept a job at 70% of his salary, when he then loses that job? Will he be forced to accept another 30% pay cut? Where will the cheap labour spiral end?