House of Commons Hansard #82 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was security.
Michael Ignatieff LiberalLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, I was there. Derek's question was not just about the waste and mismanagement of the government; it was about the government's wasteful priorities: billions on superprisons, billions on a stealth aircraft without a competitive bid, a billion on a wasted G20-G8 photo op.
What Derek cannot understand is not only the waste and the mismanagement, but how does the government justify those wasteful priorities?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the G20 has been the world's premier economic forum during this global recession precisely for the purpose of managing the troubles in the global economy and diverting the kind of global depression we could have had without it.
At the same time, the real issue here raised by the Leader of the Opposition is his priorities. He says that he would ground the Canadian air force. He says that he would put criminals out on the streets. Why? In order to justify a bunch of tax increases he wants to bring on employers.
That is the kind of thing that would put the Canadian economy into a deep ditch.
Michael Ignatieff LiberalLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, when he has no rebuttal for the Liberals' policy, he makes things up. Yes, the Liberals' priorities are different. We want to take care of families and family caregivers, but the government is telling us that it costs too much. If it costs too much, can the government explain to these struggling families why it is wasting billions of dollars on photo ops, billions of dollars on superprisons, and billions of dollars on fighter jets with no competitive bidding process?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party's policies are very clear. They want to increase taxes so they can spend much more money than this government. Canada has the smallest deficit among the major industrialized countries, and the best record. That is why we are resisting the Liberal coalition's policy.
Michael Ignatieff LiberalLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, instead of discussing an invented imagined Liberal platform, let us talk about the government's record.
We had five prime ministers of different parties. They all had principles and they all secured a seat on the Security Council.
Why does the government have the arrogance to believe it is the only government with principle, when it is the only government that failed to secure a seat on the Security Council?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I am always delighted when the opposition does not want to talk about its own policies but would rather talk about the government record.
As we know, in terms of the specific question, there is a secret vote at the United Nations. These things are inherently difficult to predict, regardless of the fact that we had secured written approval from the vast majority of the countries. But the fact of the matter is this. Precisely because these things are not predictable, we do not base Canadian foreign policy on them. We act according to Canada's values.
Michael Ignatieff LiberalLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the Prime Minister has a problem with a secret ballot. Five prime ministers had a secret ballot at the UN, and five prime ministers succeeded. Five prime ministers had clear principles on Canadian defence. Those five won seats.
Why did the Prime Minister lose the seat at the UN?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, we had the written approval of the vast majority of the countries. It is not possible to predict the vote in a secret ballot, but that is why we do not base our foreign policy decisions on such votes. We base them on the principles, values and interests of Canada and of Canadians.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, let us go over the facts concerning the awarding of contracts by the Department of Public Works. A contractor, Mr. Sauvé, won a $9 million contract to renovate the Parliament buildings. A few months later, Mr. Sauvé held a cocktail fundraiser for the Conservative Party. The party's Quebec lieutenant, who was also the minister of public works at the time, attended this cocktail party.
Does the Minister of Natural Resources, who was the minister of public works, think it was appropriate to attend a cocktail fundraiser for his party organized by a contractor to whom his department had just awarded a $9 million contract?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, this government set very strict limits on donations to political parties. The Bloc leader is talking about an event that took place many months after the contract was awarded. It is ridiculous to say that amounts like that can influence contract awards.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, we recently learned that a certain Jacques Canac-Marquis, who took over managing the contract to renovate the Parliament buildings after the original contractor, Mr. Sauvé, went bankrupt, was also at the cocktail fundraiser attended by the then minister of public works.
Does the minister realize that this is starting to look eerily like a scheme to get political funding in exchange for government contracts?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, seriously, this government set strict limits on donations to political parties. Companies cannot make political contributions.
It is ridiculous to suggest that a modest donation can influence contract awards.
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Mr. Speaker, at least five business owners involved in repairing or constructing government buildings funded the Association du Parti conservateur Bourassa in January 2009. Paul Sauvé, Norman Glouberman, Julia Gersovitz, Joseph Broccolini and Jacques Canac-Marquis worked for Public Works and funded the Conservative Party.
Is the Minister of Natural Resources still comfortable with the fact that he attended a cocktail party fundraiser for the Conservative Party alongside his own department's suppliers?
Public Works and Government ServicesOral Questions
Ottawa West—Nepean Ontario
Conservative
John Baird ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, it was our government whose first priority was to bring in the Federal Accountability Act.
It was this government that, as a matter of its first priority, eliminated the influence of big money in politics. Union contributions are gone. Corporate contributions are gone. Large contributions from individuals are gone. That is the legacy of this government, and we are very proud of that.
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Mr. Speaker, the former public works minister sees no issue with passing the hat among government contractors. This is clear proof that he is on equal footing with Alfonso Gagliano in terms of ethics.
Can the Minister of Natural Resources explain how a building contractor who received a contract from his department came to organize a cocktail party for the Conservative Party?
Public Works and Government ServicesOral Questions
Ottawa West—Nepean Ontario
Conservative
John Baird ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, on a day when all members of the House stood and applauded actions to reduce the outrageous comments and increase decorum, the member opposite's comments, comparing the Minister of Natural Resources, someone who is an outstanding public servant, someone who has done an outstanding job for his constituency, for Quebec and for Canada, are, quite honestly, outrageous.
Jack Layton NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, an internal government audit comes to an alarming conclusion for all Canadians. It says that the Public Health Agency is not prepared to deal with emergencies that could threaten the health of thousands of Canadians. There is no risk management plan. In fact, the audit calls it “ad hoc and reactive”. There are untrained workers and no capacity to deploy them quickly in the case of an emergency.
Could the Prime Minister explain to the House when the Public Health Agency will be ready to respond to the next national emergency in Canada?
Leona Aglukkaq ConservativeMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, the audit was initiated by the agency as part of our continuous improvement process. We accept the recommendations in the audit and we have begun work to address them.
As well, let me make it very clear that the agency is ready and able to respond to the next emergency just as we did for H1N1, where we coordinated the largest mass vaccination program in Canada's history.
Jack Layton NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, the most worrisome part of this audit has to do with emergency supplies. It says that the field hospitals are from the 1950s; the system dates back to the Cold War; there is inadequate inventory; there are problems managing the pharmacy; there is a lack of reliable shelf life information; and there is inadequate maintenance of the equipment.
The agency even conducted a previous review, as the minister said, but the audit says that public health officials failed to act on the recommendations. How can this be possible?
Leona Aglukkaq ConservativeMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, I said many times before in the House that we would evaluate how we responded to the public health emergency over the last year. We continue to evaluate the H1N1 response, to identify success in areas for improvements, while applying lessons learned to ongoing planning. As well, a Senate committee is currently reviewing how we responded to H1N1. We will continue to apply improvements where necessary.
Jack Layton NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, I realize that the agency has acknowledged the problems, but it does not believe that they are serious. Another independent report showed that things were a complete mess during the H1N1 flu epidemic: vaccine production was too slow, planning was incomplete and there were obvious communication issues.
An internal government audit confirms that no changes have been made to the Public Health Agency since the crisis. Why?
Leona Aglukkaq ConservativeMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, as we did in responding to the SARS situation, we evaluated how we responded to SARS and applied improvements.
I said during this public health emergency that we would evaluate how we responded to H1N1, and we are doing that. In areas where we can apply improvements, we will continue to do that.
In addition, this government has continued to increase transfers to the provinces and territories by 6%, so each province and territory can deliver health care and apply those resources where most needed.
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Mr. Speaker, this Conservative government is the highest-spending government and has run up the largest deficit in Canadian history. They wasted taxpayers' money when they increased spending by 18% before the recession. They have wasted billions of dollars on frivolous, irresponsible expenditures, such as fake lakes, and now they have the nerve to claim that the recession created the deficit. They ran up a deficit before the recession.
Will the minister admit that he has no idea how to stop this spending spree and that he is no more competent on Parliament Hill than he was at Queen's Park?
Jim Flaherty ConservativeMinister of Finance
To the contrary, Mr. Speaker, we have the lowest deficits by far in the G7. Our deficit this year is lower than forecast. During the first three years, we paid down more than $40 billion of public debt and balanced the budget every year. That is why our country was in the best position of any country in the G7 to deal with the recession when it came.
Deal with it we did, better than any other country in the G7.
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Mr. Speaker, that is not a minister of finance. It is the minister of debt and deficits. The Conservatives borrow and spend and they borrow and waste, all this while Canadian families are suffering. Yet the minister wants more reckless tax breaks for big corporations. Can he not see that these are unaffordable tax cuts?
He is back to his Queen's Park pattern: borrow money, compromise public services, double the debt and create deficits. Why will he not admit that he does not have the competence to clean up his own financial mess?