Debates of June 1st, 2010

Opposition Motion—G8 and G20 Summits

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like clarification on a couple of points.

With all due respect to the member opposite's financial acumen and judgment, the government's activities on the international scene on financial management have been ranked number one in the world by no less respected authorities than the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the internationally respected The Economist, and many others. It is quite a stretch to suggest that the government does not have a handle on the economy when everybody else around the world has judged us to be sitting in the number one position.

The member talked about all of these dollars, so much per minute, per hour, per day. He has been around this institution quite a bit longer than I have and he must realize and certainly must admit that the planning and preparation and construction of the infrastructure is a lengthy process. This is not a three day conference. It is a three day formal meeting. The preparation and planning has taken days, weeks, months, and has even stretched into years. There has been an enormous capital investment in manpower, technology, training, security, and organization. It is quite a stretch to suggest that all costs by the hour, by the week, of the actual conference can be directly attributable to that.

A lot of the other countries have not been as transparent as Canada has been when it comes to what has been spent. Some countries just included the overtime costs for the given day, not the regular ongoing operating costs. We have been transparent and open about all of the ongoing daily operating costs, and that is what Canadians want to see.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was just writing down what the gentleman said so that I could repeat it verbatim.

The member said that other countries have not been as transparent as Canada has been. I would suggest we be very cautious with our words because telling other countries that they have not been transparent is an insult. That is like telling them they have not been transparent, that they are hiding something, or that they are misleading people. If that is the case, I do not want their officials in my country. I do not want them around the conference table. I do not want them giving suggestions to me here in Canada if they are not transparent. Let them stay home and work in their non-transparent environments.

In answer to the member about the cost, let me simplify it. If I build a house today and it costs $200,000 and three years down the road I want to build another similar house, the same square footage, the whole bit, and I add in the increase in inflation, et cetera, the cost of that house would go from $200,000 to $1.2 million. If I paid that $1.2 million, people would think I was stupid or that I had been suckered in. That is why I gave those other figures.

If England can spend $20 million, if Japan can spend $200 million or $300 million, and it does things first-class as we do here, how can we jump to $1.1 billion plus a contingency fund? I can guarantee to Canadians that the contingency fund will be accessed and we will see where we go with it.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Liberal opposition members like to throw around numbers in the range of $20 million, $30 million, $40 million that they know are not realistic.

There are people in the security business who actually know what it costs to put on a conference like this. They know that the conference in London or Pittsburgh did not cost $30 million or $40 million in total. It was up around $1 billion. They have made several comments over the last few days that if we compare apples to apples, that is, if we take all of the security costs into consideration when putting a number to the cost of a G8 or G20 conference, we would come within the same range as what this government is prepared to spend to host these two conferences in Canada.

As a matter of fact, within the last few days $1.5 billion was the figure that came out as being spent for the last conference in Hokkaido, Japan. It was not $20 million, $30 million or $40 million. It was $1.5 billion, which represents the total cost of putting on that conference.

The numbers the Liberals are throwing around represent only a small portion of the actual cost. They know it, but it sounds better for them to say it in the way that they are. They are not being completely honest when it comes to the actual cost.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the last 17 years I have sat here, I have never heard more dishonesty--and I can use that word, Mr. Speaker, because it was used--come from anywhere but that party. For example, there is the billion dollar boondoggle lie, the one or two billion dollar gun registry lie.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member knows full well that he cannot use those kinds of words when describing things that the government is saying or has said. Calling this government a liar or accusing this government of telling lies is simply not acceptable in this Parliament. He knows that. He has been around here for 17 years, as I have.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I think insinuating that members were telling lies or being dishonest, I would encourage the member to move away from that kind of language.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

We will move away from that, Mr. Speaker. We will just let Danny Williams, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador call it as it is. I think he used that word without any hesitation whatsoever. Sometimes people just do not like it when we put the truth on the table. However, I will say that the Conservatives have been intellectually dishonest with Canadians from day one.

The figures I used came from the various conferences that were held, the Ottawa-Montebello conference, the Toronto-Halifax conference, the Kananaskis conference, and the Muskoka conference. I used the figures from the various conferences. If they are in dispute, then we should look at them accurately and say whoever gave us the figures might have been misleading us.

As I said earlier, I am pleased that the Conservatives are in government and finally learning how to run the country, but they are not doing it that well. When he first came here, the member was a Reform member, and then an Alliance member, and now he is a Conservative member. He knows very well how his party misled Canadians. For example, his party played out the gym as a palace to Canadians. It is a room with some fitness equipment. They talked about the limousines. His then leader, Preston Manning, gave it away and he was using a limousine on his own and was driven here. There was the clothing allowance. It was okay to talk about it. Now we see that the Prime Minister has a limousine entourage like we have never seen before, but that is okay. Canadians can judge for themselves.

I put the figures on the table. If anybody would like to see them, I would be more than happy to make them available.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while the member attempts to convince Canadians that the numbers he is using are comparative to the actual cost of putting on an exercise like a G20 or a G8, in fact, he is not comparing apples to apples. The conferences that he mentioned are in no way comparable to what we are planning and what other countries have done, where it cost them $1 billion or $1.5 billion, as well, the number in Japan that I just finished reporting again for about the fourth time in the House today. Why is it that the Liberal members refuse to acknowledge that is an actual real number for a conference exactly like what we are planning in Canada? It cost $1 billion in Japan to put that on. It cost $1 billion in Canada to put that on.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I will have to stop the member there to give the member for Scarborough Centre enough time to reply.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me summarize it.

Canada proudly put on the Winter Olympic Games, which lasted for 17 days. There were thousands of very important people, starting with our athletes, Paralympics and all, and it cost less than that. Is that not a large venue to use for comparison?

I will close with this. If the member bought a car tomorrow, a certain brand that I will not name, and he paid $40,000 for it and a year down the road I bought the same model of car with the same options and everything, I would pay ten times the amount. This is what I am trying to say. I used the Olympics as an example. I used the building of a house as an example. This is common sense. It is not revolutionary in any way. Canadians are too intelligent. They are going to see beyond the smokescreen and one day they will judge.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Nickel Belt.

It is nice to have the opportunity to speak to this motion today. It relates to a hot-button issue that is hurting the government in the coffee shops across this land: the out of control spending on security for the upcoming G8 and G20 meetings in Huntsville and Toronto later this month.

If one were fortunate to have heard Cross Country Checkup this past weekend, one would have been able to pick up on the overwhelming outraged voices at the escalating costs of security for these meetings. Many of the callers were overcome by sticker shock with the huge sum that security in Canada's biggest city for these events will cost. Some callers detailed what items could be purchased or what measures could be pursued with such a vast amount of money. Others spoke of our record deficit and the lingering effects of the economic crisis.

A very few were completely supportive of the cost of security for these events, while others admitted that there needs to be spending on security for these events but felt that perhaps this too had snowballed out of control under the government's obsession with George Bush-style security concerns.

That is probably closest to our opinion. We are not saying that there should not be security for these events. We are not saying that there is no reason whatsoever to have these meetings. Our heads are not stuck in the sand on this issue but they are not up in the clouds like the government's either. One could say that we are not drinking the Kool-Aid that seems to flow freely over in the government lobby. That would be a reasonable way to characterize our position on today's motion and the issue of security at these kinds of events.

Perhaps it is merely a matter of perception that separates us from the Conservatives. We do not see terrorists around every corner or fall asleep at night worrying about some bogeyman-fueled crime spree either. Conservatives look at people who do not share their opinions and see the worst in these people. How many times has the Minister of Public Safety stood in this place and gone on about terrorists and petty thugs?

To hear the Conservatives speak, one would think there is a terrorist cell in every neighbourhood across the land waiting to lash out and send our lives into disarray. To listen to the Minister of Public Safety try to justify the incredible cost of security for these meetings, one would think that we are constantly under threat from these unsavoury individuals.

This is the hallmark of the current brand of the Conservatives. They are great at recognizing perceived threats that allow them to pursue their agenda and spread the public's money around to their supporters. In this case, it is for those in the private security business, the people who rent them the security fencing and provide the private security guards. They too share the view that we are just not safe.

However, the government will not protect us from real threats, such as the threat to our health from the eroding environment. It will not protect our communities in a meaningful way when they are left decimated by terrible policies in forestry or laid to waste by foreign owners who have no respect for the Canadian way of life that built companies like Inco.

For the majority of people in my constituency, this expenditure for security is yet another sign that the Conservatives are primarily interested in investors and not citizens. It is a government that will go out of its way to clear the path for any investor, to let them trample rights and long-standing covenants in pursuit of the only virtue Conservative seek: profit.

If people want to buy a company and change everything in the process or if people do not like the pension plan, they do not need to worry. They do not have to honour it. They can just lock out the employees or close down the operation, like Xstrata did, and sit on the resources until they can find people to work at slave wages with little or no additional compensation.

Those are the kinds of outcomes that are a result of the meetings that we are spending $1 billion to protect.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

We are back in the 1930s. Pat, tell her this is 2010.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

The member across is right. He is talking about what it was like in the 1930s and this is exactly where the government is trying to bring us. That is the kind of economy these G8 and G20 types most desire.

My constituency, which sits in the epicentre of our recent and ongoing financial crisis, cannot support this. We will not condone spending money to protect the interests of the companies that are going to war against the Canadian workforce and our way of life. We see this in Sudbury right now with Vale Inco. A lot of my constituents actually work there, as well as my husband, by the way.

We will not condone spending this kind of money while the government allows pensions to collapse or remain underfunded, all the while allowing companies off the hook for doing so. We will not condone spending outrageous sums to protect the elite while refusing to spend to protect the most vulnerable and those who have given their whole lives to build this country.

One of the ironies that will come out of the G8 and G20 meetings is that we will likely hear the call for reduced taxes for wealthy corporations and the investors that fuel them. We will hear how this will make them competitive and that they will be able to thrive with this advantage. Yet these champions of a world without corporate taxation or corporate responsibility will suck on the public teat the whole time, drawing money from every worker across this land and using it to protect themselves while they issue statements admonishing the same workers for expecting too much from the corporate elite. It is a theatre of the absurd.

Will Canadians come to accept the incredibly huge cost of security for these meetings? Will they forget about it over a hot, long summer? The government can only hope as much. The Conservatives are laughing on the other side because they do not think the money they are actually going to spend on this is a serious issue. This is a big issue for my constituents.

They know, too, that there is only so much that John Q. Public will take. They see the wounds piling up, the scar tissue from the outrageous behaviour of the former minister of state for the Status of Women and the way her husband attempted to sell access to the government's inner circle while successfully dodging drunk driving and hard drug charges that still fuels the chatter around the coffee pot. Will this be another black eye that refuses to fade for the government? Only time will tell.

I know this much. We have identified an opportunity for the Liberal Party to join us in actually standing up on behalf of all Canadians and telling the government that enough is enough. We have offered the Liberals the opportunity to put their money where their mouth is and truly stand up to the government and say no to items like the sale of AECL, the gutting of Canada's environmental impact assessment process and the after-the-fact lessening of the wholesale handover of the employment insurance fund that will allow profitable corporations in Canada to enjoy yet another round of tax breaks.

In many ways, that is what this motion is really about. It is about piling on to everyday Canadian taxpayers. It is about how the little guy will pay the freight yet again so that those with the most wealth and influence can move about freely and make arrangements to push through the remnants of the corporate global agenda. That is why there is so much outrage on this issue and why the government prays that the public has a short memory on this issue.

Of the many interesting ideas that were floated on the radio this past weekend, one was to arrange for a permanent site for these kinds of meetings, a site with the appropriate security built into it, a site that would allow these meetings to take place without having to inconvenience people who just want to go to work or a ball game, a site that would simply allow these meetings to take place.

One drawback of such an arrangement is that it would not make for the same kinds of photo ops. On one level, that is what these meetings amount to: groups of elite in expensive suits lining up to appear chummy before the camera so the people who cannot afford to put their children in hockey this year can have a flashy picture of the Prime Minister looking like the best pal of the chancellor of Germany. They can look at the picture and see the architects of the demise that has taken away our forestry jobs and the henchmen of the international investor movement who have paved the way for locked out and lost mining jobs.

It will show up time and again in Conservative advertising as they extol the virtues of our policy of bending over to accommodate the whims of the international market and the desires of corporate elite to control policy while refusing to participate in the heavy lifting of implementing it. It will make a great souvenir to remind them of the life they used to enjoy before the corporate elite excused themselves from having to participate in society.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Before I move on to questions and comments, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis, Environment; and the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway, Public Safety.

Questions and comments. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's comments this afternoon and they gave me the utmost proof that members of the NDP are totally out of touch with the world.

They obviously do not understand what the G8 and the G20 are all about. They are about the economy. If we look at the economy of Canada, which we recently found out, we had a 6.1% growth in the economy. We can look at the job creation we are having and compare that to the Socialist governments of the world. Let us take Greece as an example and a look at what is going on in Greece with the protectionism and the left-wing policies of the 1970s. It shows how out of touch it is.

It is obvious to me that these protestors, these anarchists, these people who are ready to come forth and disrupt the G8 and G20, are writing the NDP policy. That is what I have come up with as a conclusion this afternoon.

I have a question for the member. Knowing how important the economy is and knowing that Canada does not live in a box and that we have to work in a globalized economy with other countries of the world, does the member not feel that it is appropriate that we do ensure this is a good experience for the world to come to Canada and work toward—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I will stop the member there to allow the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing enough time to respond.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, $1 billion for security. I just think of the economic stimulus we could have on other projects that we so rightly deserve.

The member talks about the economy and the need to stimulate the economy. This is a government that did not even believe we were going into an economic crisis. The member talks about job creation.

I have some projects here that were denied funding. The Gore Bay Airport in Gore Bay wanted $1.7 million to repave the airport that the federal government uses but the funding it was offered was pulled the next day. What a shame. Elliot Lake needed $15 million for a multiplex. It was told it would get the funding but the next day it was told that it would not, that a mistake had been made.

Here is the money that could be spent. Let us look at the township of Hornepayne. The Hornepayne town centre is about to close. It is the only high school in that community, with the only pool, the only restaurant and the only hotel. Funding to help it would be—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I will have to stop the member there so we can accommodate another question or comment.

The hon. member for Shefford.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the people who are out of touch are those on the other side of the House. If they read the papers every day, they would know that we are not the only ones asking why $1 billion was spent on security.

If it cost so much—$1 billion—to hold the G8 and G20 in Toronto, they could have chosen any other site in Canada. They could have chosen a location that would have cost less than $1 billion. They could have saved money.

As the member was saying, we could have used the money saved for older worker assistance programs, which cost $75 million per year. We could have helped these people rather than using this money to protect others. We could have found a much less expensive way to protect them. What does my colleague think?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. The Conservatives mentioned that jobs have been created. I am sure the same has happened in his region. They say they have created a lot of jobs but, truth be told, they are part-time or very low-paying jobs.

We should really be investing in such programs as the Regional Green Technologies Centre in Hearst, which focuses on climate change and green jobs. The centre applied for about $350,000 from FedNor but, once again, there is no money.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise and speak to this motion that calls on the government to provide a detailed breakdown to Canadians on how the money earmarked for security for the G8 and G20 summits is being spent and an explanation of how the security budget was permitted to spiral out of control.

I wanted to speak to this motion because it relates to one of the key elements of the government's campaign promises to Canadians: more accountability and more transparency

This issue is a glaring example of precisely the opposite by the government: significantly less accountability, significantly less transparency. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the government has perfected the art of secrecy and offered no greater accountability than the previous government.

This past April, in a report entitled “Out of Time”, the interim Information Commissioner gave more than half of the 24 government departments reviewed either a below average or a failing grade for compliance with access to information. In fact, the Department of Foreign Affairs received an overall red alert rating for its deplorable handling of information requests.

Is it any wonder that after four years in office a majority of Canadians still do not trust the government or the Prime Minister? Worst still, the government promised Canadians that it is a better manager of the public purse. Instead, Canadians have been treated to moves like wiping out the more than $57 billion in contributions made by workers and employers off the books of the employment insurance fund while providing billions in corporate tax cuts. Talk about misguided priorities.

I guess we should not expect anything else from the Conservative government. That money belonged to the workers and employers. As well the government has built into its own budget projections an increase in the EI payroll tax, which will generate a surplus that could reach $24 billion by 2020. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has said that the tax hike will cause a loss of 200,000 jobs.

I have unemployed workers in my riding of Nickel Belt who are running out of employment insurance benefits or have run out and cannot get the retraining they need. Our communities have been disproportionately hit by the recession. What an insult to the hard-working families of Nickel Belt.

New Democrats believe there should be no payroll tax increase until the previous $57 billion surplus is paid back. At least $7 billion of that was accumulated under the government's watch. I could list countless other examples of the lack of accountability and transparency.

However, to return to this particular issue, we need to understand how the government's own estimates of spending on security for the G8 and G20 could spiral from $179 million to almost $1 billion in just three months. It is absolutely outrageous.

Ask any Canadian whether this latest blunder meets the test of improved accountability and transparency. When they have calmed down from being outraged, their answer will no doubt be a resounding no.

It is hard to fathom that security for a three day summit will cost more than the security for all 17 days of the Vancouver Olympics. For comparative purposes here are some numbers on the Olympics. There were about 5,500 Olympic Games athletes and officials; approximately 1,350 Paralympic Games athletes and officials; 10,000 media representatives.

Remarkably, the government now tells Canadians that it is about to spend $1 billion on a three day event. What burns me and what burns many constituents is the fact that the money could be more efficiently spent on programs for Canadians.

In four years the government has abandoned so many citizens. As my colleague, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, has pointed out, we now have veterans turning to food banks. That is scandalous. Our aboriginal people living on reserves are among the poorest of the poor in this country. That is unacceptable.

My colleagues from Halifax and Churchill have spoken about the fact that funding for aboriginal friendship centres has not been renewed.

My colleague from London—Fanshawe has spoken eloquently about the lack of support for women in this country.

My colleague from Sault Ste. Marie has rung the alarm bells about the sorry poverty in this country.

A report released last month by Citizens for Public Justice noted that 3.9 million Canadians are poor, an increase of 900,000 from 2007, including 160,000 more children. It also noted that last year, nearly half the unemployed did not even qualify for EI benefits, and 777,400 unemployed Canadians were not receiving EI. Further, it noted that social assistance caseload increased in all 10 provinces, with Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia seeing increases greater than 20%.

What is lacking here is federal leadership. The Conservative government is not here to serve the people. It is here to fly planes to Tim Hortons. The Conservatives probably think they need the $1 billion in security to protect themselves from the ever-growing ranks of the poor.

If I had more time, I could provide even more examples of where this money could be better spent. Thank goodness for New Democrat MPs who stand in the House, day in and day out, highlighting the unfairness of the government, providing clear, insightful direction on how public money could be better spent.

In this country there is a desperate need for real federal leadership, for real investment in people and communities. Instead, the government siphons off billions from employment insurance, money taken directly from the workers to fill part of a giant revenue shortfall created by billions in corporate tax giveaways.

In summary, this latest occasion for Conservative mismanagement only serves to remind Canadians that the Conservatives are not good fiscal managers, but rather they have become great at mismanaging public money. We need answers; we need them now.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member's statements. I wonder what it must be like to sit in on the morning caucus meeting with the NDP. I imagine that there are probably more happy people attending funeral services than what the NDP members must enjoy over there.

I find it hard to believe that we can have the kind of numbers being created in this country and they are blind to it all. We had 6.1% growth in our economy in the first quarter, hundreds of thousands of jobs created, hundreds of millions of dollars of new investment announced today into a General Motors plant in St. Catharines, and CAW workers going back to work. That is the record of the government. That is the impact of our economic action plan and they voted against all of it.

With respect to the G8 and the G20 summits, an unprecedented opportunity for Canada to lead at a time when Canada is a bright, shining star economically, this member would have us not provide that leadership globally. I am proud that we will be providing that leadership.

I know it is a lot of money, but I am glad that we are there providing leadership at a time when the world needs leadership from a country that is clearly leading. Why does the member not support it?

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to invite the hon. member to come to our caucus meeting tomorrow. It would give him some insight on what is happening in this country. There are poor people in this country who could use this $1 billion that is being spent on security. There are seniors living in poverty in this country. I would like to invite the member to come to our caucus meeting on Wednesday and get a feel for what is going on in this country.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member from the Conservative Party said Canada is taking a leadership role. The fact of the matter is, there has been no leadership. The problem is that the world is saying, “Where is Canada? Where is Canada on the environmental file? Where is Canada on reducing maternal and child health?” The government has not articulated a plan.

My question to the member is this. Does he not agree that the central unifying place upon which Canada can invest money, and reduce the unconscionable loss of 244,000 women's lives a year and 8.8 billion children's lives a year, is that the government work with the G8 to invest in the basic elements of primary health care in developing countries?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. There seems to be some other questions and comments going on at the far end of the chamber that the Chair finds quite distracting, so if members could hold off their discussions or if they need to talk to their colleagues, could they do so by sitting close to each other so they do not have to shout. I think the rest of the chamber would appreciate it.

The hon. member for Nickel Belt.