Debates of June 1st, 2010

Opposition Motion—G8 and G20 Summits

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a brilliant suggestion. There are many places that we could hold summits where there is already security apparatus. I would be very pleased in Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca to hold a summit at CFB Esquimalt. It is the 100th anniversary of our navy, I might add, and there are truly outstanding people from Rear-Admiral Tyrone Pile to Capt. Marcel Halle, and the entire team of men and women who serve who would do an outstanding job.

I think the government needs to know that on its watch, with respect to neonatal mortality rates, Canada has fallen from 6th to 22nd in the entire world. That is absolutely shocking. Canada has fallen from 6th to 22nd in neonatal mortality, a precipitous drop on the government's watch.

The other thing, as I have said before, is that the environment is missing in action at the summit. Part of the reason is that the Prime Minister and his team do not believe that climate change actually exists. They believe it is some form of junk science and are ignoring the facts and the science.

This month, in fact, is an absolutely watershed moment in climate change because the United Nations framework convention on climate change just started in Bonn, Germany this week. This is a watershed moment. The G8 and G20 can also work with the deliberations there to mobilize the world's most powerful nations to implement a plan of action to reduce our carbon footprint in the world.

The government has simply chosen, for the first time in history, not to deal with the environment at a G8 summit. I think Canadians are all very deeply concerned about our environment and should know that the government is actually taking our country and putting it into a corner far away from the other G8 nations. The G8 nations keep asking, “What happened to Canada? Why is Canada rolling back the clock on abortion? Why is Canada not dealing with the environment? Why is Canada now an obstruction, because of the government, on important issues like the environment?”

It is quite shocking. The government has a lot to answer to, but what we are hearing is nothing.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member a follow-up question.

With this $1 billion that the government is spending on security, we could provide over 1,200 new hybrid buses for public transit in this country. In fact, we could stop the closure of six prison farms in the country for $4 million and actually do something positive to rehabilitate criminals in jails.

I would like to ask the member whether he would like to make a comment about what the government is doing with these six very successful long-time prison farms in this country that are going to be closed down as early as the end of June?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. Conrad Black, who knows a thing or two about the justice system in the United States, wrote a scathing article in the National Post a few days ago about the government and what it is doing regarding justice. He said it is absolutely appalling. Mr. Conrad Black excoriated the Prime Minister and the Conservative government of Canada for their myopic and destructive actions regarding justice.

All of us support putting the protection of our citizens first and foremost, but we also believe in a balanced judicial system that actually enables us to protect our citizens, rehabilitate people and, most importantly, provide protection and care for victims of crime. However, the government has taken a course of action which has been thrown out in the United States as being destructive and causing more crime and expense.

Tragically, the government is playing on the fears of Canadians, warping, twisting and telling untruths about the situation in Canada, all to get the 42% it needs for a majority. Unfortunately, the cost to Canadians in the long-term will be huge. It will result in more crime, disease and costs.

One small example is drug policy. The government is taking a course in drug policy that is absolutely opposite to what is now happening in the U.S. It is taking the position that President Bush took on drug policy, which was proven to cause more drug use, harm, criminal activity and cost. That is what our government today is doing. It is harming Canadians.

We had better get our heads straight in terms of understanding that this is what is going on so that people will listen to the alternatives, the facts, and the solutions to make Canada a safer place.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for Prince Edward—Hastings.

I am pleased to discuss this very important issue in the House today, because the government takes the safety of Canadians very seriously.

As the Prime Minister has said, in many ways, 2010 is an international year for Canada.

We hosted the world in Vancouver and Whistler for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

And this month, Canada will host summits for the leaders of the G8 and G20 nations. These events are unique and extremely useful opportunities to show what Canada has to offer, and to demonstrate our leadership on issues that are important to Canadians.

These types of events always pose special challenges. When Canada hosts the world, it is responsible for ensuring the safety of the site and of the participants.

Although the right to demonstrate peacefully is fundamental in any democracy, unfortunately, some people try to disrupt high-profile international events, or do even worse.

It is therefore quite a challenge to provide security for events such as the Olympics and the G8 and G20 summits. It is an enormous and unprecedented task to provide security for two events attended by foreign leaders in two different locations for three days.

But Canada can count on some outstanding Canadian partners that did an excellent job on security at the Vancouver Olympics. Certainly, they will be up to the challenge of providing security at the G8 and G20 summits.

We heard about the outstanding job the RCMP is doing as the main organization in charge of security at the summits. I would also like to mention the Canadian Forces' contribution to the many aspects of this highly complex government-wide initiative.

I would like to start by putting things in context. The government expects the Canadian Forces to demonstrate excellence as they do their job here at home. It also expects them to be a reliable partner in defending North America and to show leadership abroad, as the Canada first defence strategy clearly states.

The Canadian Forces are surpassing these expectations. Just a few months ago, even though they were making final plans for security at the Vancouver games, a huge undertaking if there ever was one, they still managed to quickly bring humanitarian aid to the victims of the disaster in Haiti. At the same time, our Canadian Forces were continuing their operations in Afghanistan and taking part in other missions abroad.

This was possible because Canadian soldiers are consummate professionals. Canada's sailors, soldiers and air personnel represent the best Canada has to offer.

But the government also plays a crucial role by making the necessary investments to provide the Canadian Forces with the resources they need.

Whether we are talking about buying new equipment such as C-17 Globemaster strategic lift aircraft, modernizing and replacing ageing infrastructure or investing in new integrated personnel support centres and other initiatives to look after our personnel, who are the Canadian Forces' most precious resources, the government has made a commitment to implement the Canada first defence strategy, our long-term master plan, which will allow us to provide the Canadian Forces with the personnel, equipment, infrastructure and readiness they need to do their job in the 21st century.

These investments allow the Canadian Forces to perform the task at which they excel—protecting Canadians and Canada's interests.

For example, while Canadian Olympic and Paralympic athletes were setting records on snow and ice, some 4,500 Canadian military personnel were working behind the scenes helping the RCMP and civilian organizations ensure the safety of all those who came to Vancouver to participate in those remarkable games.

The Canadian Forces played a significant and integral role in the security operation, Operation Podium, during the Olympic Games. This operation involved personnel from the navy, the army and the air force, who worked together to ensure that the 10,000 km² area surrounding the site of the games as well as the site itself were safe.

A number of lessons were learned from this experience. The various groups that were mobilized made a concerted effort to ensure that this government-wide security operation during the games was a success.

All aspects of this security operation, from the training and exercises before the games to the way that information was exchanged between the various departments and organizations throughout the games, are being studied and reproduced for the G8 and G20 summits.

The Canadian military is ready to play a similar role in these summits.

Although the size of the summits, each of which will be unique, is similar to the Vancouver Games, there are important differences. For example, the games took place in a generally festive atmosphere, whereas the summits are more serious political events.

In the past, events of this type have been met with large protests that have sometimes resulted in violence.

As well, the participants at the summits—the leaders and their delegations—will outnumber the participants at the Vancouver Games. Although the RCMP is doing an incredible job managing the security operations for the G8 and G20, it cannot do everything by itself.

The RCMP asked the Canadian Forces for help so that the government could draw on more security resources. The navy, the army and the air force will provide unique military resources and capabilities to ensure the security of the two summit locations as part of operation Cadence 2010.

The Canadian Forces will make their large-scale operational planning skills available to the RCMP.

They will also conduct land and air surveillance, ensure water safety, transport visiting leaders and their staff and carry out some logistic and ceremonial functions.

As was the case during the Olympic Games, the military contribution will draw on the partnership between the Canadian Forces and the United States Armed Forces set out in the bilateral North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD.

The Canadian Forces will contribute personnel to the security operation during the G8 and G20 summits and will deploy required equipment to provide security for activities in Huntsville and Toronto.

The military contribution to this large-scale operation will ensure the security of foreign leaders and their entourages, as well as that of everyone participating in these crucial events.

In conclusion, the 2010 G8 and G20 summits provide an excellent opportunity for Canada to make a useful contribution to discussions among foreign leaders about global issues that affect us all.

Canada will be in the foreground, demonstrating leadership on the world stage and promoting the values it holds dear, such as human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

The Canadian Forces will support the RCMP and civilian organizations by working behind the scenes to keep both summits safe and secure.

Providing security during this kind of large-scale international event is just one aspect of the Canadian Forces' mandate here at home. The Canadian Forces are well-equipped to provide unequalled support for security at the G8 and G20 summits because the government committed to giving them the tools and support they need.

That is why I cannot support the motion before the House.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the parliamentary secretary. As much as we have a lot of latitude and it is wonderful when we stand up to speak, we do not necessarily have to talk about the subject.

He talked a lot about the military, its services and the proud record that it has. However, I am sure he is well aware of two things, the first one being how the government is draining our military. It is tying up frigates and some are being mothballed. We do not have money to operate them or for gas. The other day we found out that of one of our soldiers who is serving in Afghanistan cannot get medical benefits for his child who has asthma. Where is the government's pride in our military?

The member talked about the service that our military will be offering, so why would the cost not be less given that the military is there and it has a role to play in Canada? Military personnel earn their income by being part of the military forces and, as such, they do one duty when we do not have a summit. With the summit, the forces will provide some of the services that the member talked about. Would he not think that the cost would then be lower as opposed to exorbitant the way they are?

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I will answer my hon. colleague's question. Indeed, our armed forces are paid all year long, 12 months a year. I would point out that in my speech, I mentioned that we have given the Canadian Forces the resources they need, which the Liberal Party failed to do for the 13 years it was in power. It sent soldiers into Afghanistan with completely outdated equipment, while we have made every effort to provide soldiers in Afghanistan, and elsewhere I might add, with the equipment they deserve.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we are clearly talking about a government that is setting up a conference in an urban environment and spending $1 billion on security. When the world economy is in a recession and the government is running a record $57 billion deficit, this is not the time to be spending this kind of money on security when other alternatives are available.

The member talked about the military. Why did the Conservatives not have the foresight to find a secure military facility where they would not have to disrupt an urban environment like Toronto with businesses that will lose money and there are the added risks? Why are they doing what is obviously not a good idea? Why could they not have had a better and simpler solution and saved a lot of money in the process?

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think Toronto has the right to host summits, just like any other city. Otherwise, it would mean undermining the capacity and the strengths of Toronto, Canada's largest city. I think it has the right to host this summit. Anyone who is against Toronto should not be sitting in this House.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite missed the point. The question was clear: why did they choose such a big site? Why did they not choose another site that is easy to protect, instead of a downtown, urban environment? That is the first thing.

The second thing is that the Canadian Forces did not have enough money for their ships and frigates. This is just an excuse to divert money to the armed forces so that they can continue putting fuel in their frigates. Am I right? That is my question for the hon. member.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the hon. member that we are not diverting funds. This money is needed to protect the visitors. When my colleague has guests at home, he has to protect them and ensure that they return home safely. If my colleague does not understand that, then there is not much I can do about it.

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

Mr. Speaker, this government is proud that really, in an unprecedented fashion, Canada is going to be hosting two back-to-back summits of world leaders in just a few weeks' time.

Our government remains focused on the economy, which really is the priority. It welcomes this opportunity for Canada to demonstrate its leadership on the international stage and to work with its G8 and G20 partners to develop credible and durable solutions to some of the world's most pressing challenges.

The theme for the Muskoka 2010 G8 summit and the G20 summit really is recovery and new beginnings, because that is where we are in this world today. Under this theme, in Toronto, the G20 will focus on restoring the global economy to a sound footing. In Muskoka, Canada will work with its G8 partners to address the most pressing developments and peace and security challenges. While I appreciate that costs are of interest to this House and our taxpayers, and I can certainly assure my colleagues that it is an important priority for the citizens I represent in Prince Edward--Hastings, I think it is important that we take an opportunity to remind members, Canada, and the world that these priorities are real for our upcoming summit.

The global economy, we all recognize, is in the midst of recovering from the first synchronized global recession since the Great Depression. Canada is planning to deliver a focused agenda that will follow through on the critically important promises made by G20 leaders when they met in Pittsburgh last fall. It is a follow-up to ensure a full recovery and to lay the foundation for future prosperity and growth. Without future prosperity and growth, we do not have a future.

Coordinated actions by Canada and the G20 partners have helped to ease the impact of the economic crisis on workers and businesses around the world and have helped to accelerate recovery. Because of these actions, conditions are now improving here at home and in many other countries.

However, we have to be mindful that this recovery is still fragile, and unemployment remains at clearly unacceptable levels. There are also concerns that unsustainable fiscal balance sheets in a number of advanced economies, such as in the PIGS--Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain--could derail the recovery and weaken long-term growth. At the Toronto G20 summit, Canada will work with world leaders to ensure a full recovery and to lay the foundation for future prosperity and growth.

This government's first priority at the G20 is to ensure that it follows through on its shared responsibility to steer the global economy out of the recession and to build a stronger global economy that is rooted in sustainable growth and prosperity for all. To do this, G20 members will need to continue to fully implement stimulus measures until recovery becomes more entrenched. However, once stimulus is implemented, it is important that countries around the world act quickly to restore their public finances. Our government is already on track. It is laying out a clear and credible plan to restore fiscal balance in budget 2010. In Toronto, we will encourage our G20 partners to do the same.

Our second priority for Toronto is to make real progress in implementing the framework for strong, sustainable, and balanced growth, which was launched at the Pittsburgh G20 summit. The framework is a key mechanism for the G20's shared economic co-operation going forward. The framework is a tool that will help the G20 set common economic objectives and assess our respective fiscal, monetary, and structural policies to ensure that they are consistent with our collective goals.

With the support of the international financial institutions, G20 members have completed the initial phase of a mutual assessment of their national and regional policy frameworks and programs and of the projections underneath those frameworks. In Toronto, leaders will need to agree, and we all know that this is not a simple job, on a common diagnosis of the challenges facing the G20 as we attempt to achieve our shared objective of strong, sustainable, and balanced growth. Leaders will also need to agree on a broad set of policies to address these challenges and on steps for co-operation under the framework.

A third priority for Toronto will be to ensure that progress is made in implementing past commitments to financial and regulatory--

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to rise on a point of order, but the member is a parliamentary secretary. I just think that his reference to Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain as PIGS is not really appropriate. I would ask him to retract that.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member is not, in fact, a parliamentary secretary, but I will allow him to respond.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is just a reference that I have heard and read on many occasions in national news, in business editorials, and in magazines. I just thought it was clearly an acronym that was acceptable. If the member does not feel that it is acceptable, I would certainly go along with that.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for the sake of this honourable House, just for clarification, the term “PIGS” is the first letter of each country—Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain. I believe that the member did not mean anything dishonourable.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The Chair takes that at face value and takes that explanation to be appropriate.

The hon. member for Prince Edward—Hastings.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member across for his consideration and courtesy on that matter.

Progress in this area will ensure transparency in the marketplace. It will help link risk and performance, and it will reward and encourage a culture of prudent behaviour that is focused on the long term.

Our fourth priority for Toronto is to keep markets open to trade and investment. Since we are a global economy, unless there is international currency and unless it flows across the globe, things will not work. Investment will not happen. Jobs will not be created. Families will not have the means to survive. Open markets contribute to both national and global prosperity. They have facilitated the growing prosperity of this and past generations for as long, certainly, as I can remember and for generations before us from our forefathers.

Major economies have a responsibility to take concrete measures to actively promote trade liberalization and to encourage investment, or we risk losing these gains in prosperity. Canada is leading by example. We are eliminating tariffs on all manufacturing inputs, machinery, and equipment, which will ultimately make Canada a tariff-free zone for manufacturers. There are several in my riding who are taking advantage of this and the deferred capital cost writeoffs. There is certainly a gain. This is something that can be applied universally around the globe in other areas. These are obviously arguments that will be presented at the G20.

This government has also taken steps to liberalize trade through bilateral agreements and has reduced restrictions on foreign investment.

Our fifth priority for Toronto is to advance the G20's work on quota and other reforms at international financial institutions, including, of course, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and so on. The international financial institutions play an important role in supporting growth and development and in reducing poverty. The reforms being pushed forward by the G20 will increase the legitimacy, credibility, and effectiveness of these institutions and will ensure that they are adequately financed.

Finally, in Toronto, G20 leaders will also discuss the important goal of achieving debt relief for Haiti.

Now I would like to turn to our priorities for the Muskoka G8 summit that Canada will be hosting June 25-26. We are certainly proud to host this Muskoka summit. As G8 president, we will advance a very pragmatic and results-driven agenda that follows up on our past G8 commitments and sets focused goals for G8 leadership going forward. It is about the past, present, and future.

At Muskoka, we will focus on two areas: development and international peace and security. These issues are central to the values and interests of G8 members. They are areas in which the G8 has had an enduring role to play.

On development, as members are aware, Canada is championing a major initiative to improve maternal, newborn, and child health in developing countries. We believe that the G8 members can make a tangible difference, some in different manners, and we will make this a top priority of our Muskoka G8 summit. The statistics are staggering. Each year, nearly nine million young people die before they turn five. On maternal mortality, between 340,000 and 530,000 women die in pregnancy and childbirth annually, with 99% of these deaths occurring in developing countries. Many of these deaths can be prevented by strengthening the health systems and by improving women's access to health care and to trained health workers.

In addition, ensuring better nutrition for mothers and children and supporting the prevention and treatment of diseases and illnesses, such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, pneumonia, and diarrhea, can contribute to making progress on maternal, newborn, and child health. We have had a tremendous amount of support from around the world for this initiative. It is something that we have to work on collaboratively to provide results for people.

Of course, there is security. Security planning has unfortunately been a fact of life since 9/11, dramatically so. That is why we have worked with security experts to develop this comprehensive security plan. As we have heard from experts, proper security does come with a cost. John Kirton, director of the G8 Research Group at the University of Toronto, said, “If you want to be at the G8 table, you can't go to the washroom when the bill comes”. That is the truth, and the cost for these two summits are more or less within the range of what G8 and G20 summits in the past have been costing.

I can say that we are on target. We have listened to security experts, and we have budgeted for the costs. Unlike the Liberal leader, who said that he was embarrassed that we were holding these summits, I believe that our party and most members of the House are proud that we are. We are proud that we have a role to play.

At two back-to-back summits in Muskoka and Toronto, we will welcome the world.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from Prince Edward—Hastings referred to the leader. I do not think that is what the Liberal leader said. However, we do know what the Prime Minister said when he talked about being embarrassed for Canada when we chose not go to war in Iraq with the United States. In Canada, our history speaks for itself.

The hon. member talked about trade liberalization. I support that. We have to go out there and get our share of the market. He talked about security. He talked about what we are doing in third world countries, and I agree with him.

He comes from one of the most beautiful parts of the province, of the country. It has a tourist industry. The area he comes from needs to be protected. The environmental issues are so important. I have not once heard anybody on the government side talk about bringing environmental issues to the summit.

Canada is spending $1.1 billion or $1.2 billion. Why are we not talking about the environment?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased that the hon. member appreciates the benefits of the riding of Prince Edward—Hastings and all the wonderful tourism potential it has to offer. I would welcome him down any time. Perhaps we could share a glass of lemonade over the summer, and he could experience it first hand.

On his question, clearly, the G20 is a follow-up to the Pittsburgh summit. The Pittsburgh summit was basically put in place to deal with the severe dramatic economic circumstances of this recessionary period. Clearly, the G20 is a follow-up to that, with the same priority, since we know that we have not escaped from the dramatic impact of this financial downturn. There has to be a way of moving forward. Whether it is an economic situation, an environmental situation, or a national defence situation, it still comes around to the fact that we need an economic base to survive. It is basically the genesis of the entire process.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a friend who lives in Aurora, a gentleman by the name of David Brandon, who spent some time working in the country of Indonesia. One of the things he always said to us was that in resolving conflicts, resolving problems, the Indonesian people believe that a person needs to meet four eyes. That is the term they use.

I wonder if the member could tell us the importance of having the members of the G8 and the G20 countries meeting face to face to discuss these issues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will simplify my answer by suggesting that this is a question that all of us in the House could share, regardless of the side of the House on which we sit.

A lot of times we do not know one another. We have an opinion based either on philosophy or on a few words exchanged across the House. However, when we have the opportunity to go out to socialize, to fraternize, or to work together on a cohesive goal, whether it be a parliamentary association or so on, we understand one another and are finally able to move forward collectively with a passion and a purpose.

Quite honestly, I believe that when we take that to the ultimate level, with thousands of senior mandarins from all of the countries and all the particular leaders, and we establish that eyeball to eyeball contact and see that body language that is so important, we can have a further understanding.

I accompanied the Prime Minister on his trip to China, where, quite honestly, our trade balance was not where we wanted it to be. After brief meetings with President Hu, we have enabled over $1 billion in trade with China over this last three months. That is a result of that personal meeting.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, nobody on this side of the House is questioning the need to have these conferences and to meet face to face. That is not the question.

If the tables were turned, and the Liberals were in government right now, and they were putting on a conference in downtown Toronto with a security bill of $930 million or almost $1 billion, the Conservatives would be going crazy. There is no question in my mind about that.

Why do the Conservatives not just admit that they made a mistake and promise to do better in the future?

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

Mr. Speaker, quite honestly, if it were 25 years ago, I might even agree with the member opposite.

However, the fact is that times and things have changed. We live in a new world. We live in a world where, quite frankly, we are not appreciative of the changes. We live in a world where we are all under threat, under duress, and where terrorism, in many cases, has become a norm. Quite frankly, that puts a lot of trials and tribulations and pressure on everything from forces to--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I will have to stop the member there because the time has expired for questions and comments.

We will resume debate with the hon. member for Scarborough Centre.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what the member for Prince Edward—Hastings talked about is so true. We live in a new world, and Liberals were in government at the beginning of the new world we live in. At that time, it was under Jean Chrétien and then Paul Martin. With that new world that the member talked about came a lot more responsibilities, and obviously costs, but somehow we managed them.

The unfortunate part, though, is that when we had to take those steps, there was the Reform Party, as they were then known, and there was criticism, negativity, anti- this and anti- that. Today, I am very pleased because we are hearing comments that we have to deal with the world, we have to spend money, and we have to go to conferences.

When the Liberals planned to go to conferences, to world trade summits or the G8 or G20 that was initiated by a Liberal former prime minister, Paul Martin, the members opposite were negative. They said we should not be there. So I am pleased that the Conservatives have turned around. Now they can speak as a government. The ones who do not have to make decisions, such as the NDP, can say anything they want to Canadians, knowing they never have to deliver. Nevertheless, the Conservatives now have a taste of what it is like to make responsible decisions.

Throughout the day I was listening to the debate and decided I did not want a prepared text, that I would select a few comments from different members who have spoken and add my observations and comments. Before I do, I briefly want to read for the record the Liberal motion for the day, which states:

That, in the opinion of the House, while Canadians are justifiably proud—

We stressed that because earlier a member from the government side said, “We are proud to showcase our country”. I support that statement. So we should.

—of Canada's upcoming hosting of the G-8 and G-20 summits and determined to provide effective and efficient security for the visiting world leaders, they are outraged at the reckless partisan choices and financial mismanagement that have caused the security budget for the summits to skyrocket to over $1 billion

I will not read the entire motion, but certainly it compares the security costs for the 2010 Winter Olympics, which lasted 17 days and cost the same money. These summits are a three-day event, I say to Canadians, that is going to cost us, the government says, $1.1 billion, and there is a contingency included. Earlier today, one of the Conservative members talked about a contingency plan, which I will address in a minute, which guarantees Canadians that it will exceed that $1.1 billion.

What does that mean? It means the government is going to be spending over $400 million a day. That is mind-boggling. There was discussion about the trade with China that the hon. member brought up. That is wiped out in three days. Where is the benefit? There is zero benefit. If anything, it is costing us money.

The member for Brant earlier today talked about contingency funds built in. When Liberals were in government, the way we made our country number one, the way the Conservatives inherited the best country in the world, $13.2 billion in surplus, a balanced budget and the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio was because we had a contingency plan for a rainy day, which was $3 billion. If that money was not used, it went straight to debt repayment.

The way the Conservatives manage the economy, they eliminated the contingency plan. In their budget preparations, there is no contingency plan. When the world, never mind Canadians, was telling the Prime Minister and the Conservative government three or four years ago that we are headed into troubled and difficult times, their attitude was no, we are fine, do not worry, be happy, there is no recession, nothing is happening.

We know what has happened today. Hundreds of thousands of jobs were lost. Are these summits good? Absolutely.

The hon. gentleman talked about this as a spinoff from the Pittsburgh summit. I agree. Part of the Pittsburgh summit was about how to get economic order moving, how to get countries working. That is why I brought up the environment, because today everybody is talking about the green economy. Everybody is talking about investing in new ways, more efficient ways, more effective ways, and more cost-effective ways of running our households and our cars. We have to make an investment in these new technologies to benefit future generations and for the beautiful riding of Prince Edward—Hastings to be environmentally sound, which I know it is today, and all others, whether it is the Rouge Valley system in my neck of the woods in Scarborough or whether it is High Park in Toronto, or wherever it is.

I am very disappointed that there is nothing to address the environmental issues. I understand why, because the last time there was an environmental conference worldwide, the environment minister who is the Minister of Transport today did not want to show up. As a matter of fact, the conference did not want him there, because he did not have anything to say.

The government has totally abrogated its responsibilities when it comes to the environment. I believe and my party believes that there is a future industry in the green economy. President Obama, for example, talks about investing in the green economy. All the other world leaders are talking about investing in the green economy. Rahim Jaffer is talking about the green economy. It is to create jobs. That is the environment. That falls under the envelope called “the environment”.

This summit is a disappointment to each and every Canadian who cares about smog, who cares about a clean environment, who cares about an environmentally friendly Canada. They have been tossed aside.

This summit started off with a budget of $175 million or $180 million. All of a sudden, it just ballooned. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice spoke earlier about our military. He said that the Liberals took away all the money, that the military had no money to buy new equipment, that we did that.

Let me just say to the member, because he is a new member, that at least I can say I have the benefit of having been around here 17 or 18 years and have had the great privilege of being the chairman of the national defence committee and veterans affairs. If anybody was there witnessing it, it was me.

On the floor of this hon. House, I asked General Hillier and the minister of defence at that time about the $14 billion in new equipment that was being talked about. I asked if it was new money, plus the $14 billion from the Liberal budget that they inherited, for a total of $28 billion. After three tries, he said it was the $14 billion allocated by the Liberal government. That is where the money should have come from for new equipment.

When the member made that statement, I will say respectfully, it was intellectually not true, just for the record and for Canadians to know.

Today, when we do not have moneys to pay benefits for a sick child who is suffering with asthma and we do not have the money to have our frigates or our submarines working and we store them, or we do not have the money to replace propellors, they have been in government four and a half years. They did not just take over yesterday. So they talk a good story.

That is what I am worried about with this summit, that there is a lot of talk, but when the government gets behind closed doors, is it really going to be in there fighting for Canada? We do not believe so, given the history, given what has happened in the past.

The government has misled Canadians in many ways. It has manipulated the messaging. It has been misleading Canadians. It has been manoeuvring, misstating and misrepresenting. As a result, the government has been mismanaging the economy. But enough of the letter M words; we will go to another part of the dictionary.

How has the government been misleading Canadians? It has been misleading Canadians in terms of the deficits and in terms of raising taxes. I will give one example. When the government brought its budget in a couple of years ago, it said it would lower taxes. The lowest tax bracket with the Liberals was at 15%. The Conservatives increased it to 15.5% and called it a tax decrease. Then they talked about EI.

In order for the economy to prosper, we cannot tax employers. What is the first thing the government is doing? According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, it is raising over $13 billion in employer-employee taxing. As a former employer, I say that would have cost me more money for my deduction as an employer, and of course, less money for my employee's pocket. Yet it is not raising taxes. If that is not misleading Canadians, I do not know what to say.

They have obviously misled Canadians, as they misled Canadians on the gun registry, for example. The member for Portage—Lisgar made defamatory statements towards Toronto Chief of Police Bill Blair, who is a decent man, a good man, who calls it as he sees it, who calls a spade a spade.

I call on that hon. member to do the right thing and apologize to Chief Blair, because we know that the gun registry does not cost the $1 billion or $2 billion. Every time the government stands up, it is a different figure.

That is why we cannot trust the government going to the summit. It is always misstating the facts. We now know that it costs $4 million a year. We also know that it hid that report supporting the registry until after the vote. If that is not misleading Canadians, I do not know what is.

Earlier today, the hard-working member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour spoke. He gave us some examples of what we could do with some of the moneys.

My good friend from Sydney—Victoria, the hon. Liberal member, gave one example. He talked about the dredging that needs to be done in Sydney Harbour. He said that just 15 minutes of that conference would pay for half of the cleanup, and 30 minutes would wipe everything out. That is about $38 million.

As a member of the Greek community in Toronto, I say that one minute of that conference cost would help complete the Hellenic Cultural Centre, the first one, in its centennial year. Maybe the government will consider that.

The member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour gave us some examples of what $1 billion could do. He talked about how we could support children in need, for example. He had a report that indicated that the national child benefit could have prevented 78,800 families, or 171,100 children, from living in low income.

That is the future of Canada. That is our children. Those are some of the things that I want the Prime Minister to think about as he goes to the conference.

I have often spoken in the past about the future of our country. I have great respect for our seniors and our veterans. We in between will find our way, but we have to give emphasis to the future of our country; that is, our young men and women. I agree with the hon. member that in order to be competitive, we have to reach out and we have to have a well-educated society.

Unfortunately, it is very expensive today. The government could take some of this money and invest it into education, as the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour said earlier. He gave us some statistics when he said, for $1 billion, we could fully pay the tuition of 23,376 of the poorest Canadian students. Increasing the post-secondary student program funding to provide every first nations student who wanted to go to school with the funds to do so would cost approximately $700 million.

It could fund 28,571 Canadian graduate doctoral scholarships or 57,143 Canadian graduate master's scholars. That is preparing the brains for Canada to be competitive tomorrow.

The list goes on. We could reduce the student loan interest rates down to the government's cost of borrowing of 4.1%, which was a figure from 2008. We could expand the size of the Canada summer jobs program tenfold. That would help young men and women work during the summer.

That is part of the Pittsburgh spinoff, as the member said. It is helping Canadians get back to work. That is what I think these summits are really meant to be. How do we get our nations working and co-operating? How do we resolve issues?

One of the major issues is the environment. The government has done zero on that. I explained earlier why, because I think they might not have shown up on the hosting of their own conference.

The agency is just about to hire the staff right now. They are looking to hire two or three weeks before the summit. They do say that each person must pass a mandatory training program and have a security guard licence, which is fine. They are going to train them in a week or two to get ready to secure the world leaders. That is shocking.

This average security person is going to earn about $1,200 a week. That is about $60,000 a year. I am at a loss for words. There are people today who are hurting, who just want to earn something to put food on the table and we are going to pay approximately $1,200 or perhaps even more per week. I will let Canadians judge for themselves. That is all for a three day summit.

With respect to an audit, the Auditor General confirmed that her office will examine the spending. By the time the Auditor General does the audit it will be three or four years down the road and there will be no relevancy. God willing, the Conservatives will not be in government.

Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, also wants to do an audit but how can he? The Conservative government appointed him, but the minute he started putting the figures out, the Conservatives did not like it and they clamped down on him. They have taken away from his budget. He cannot do his work.

The message is very simple. Those who do not agree with the government are going to be shut down. Those who do not agree with the government are going to have their funding taken away. Certain groups, KAIROS for example, and certain work that they do, certain organizations that they reach out to, if it is not part of government policy the Conservatives eliminate the funds. Maybe they do not like the Greek community in Toronto and that is why it is not getting any funds for its community centre.

I have been asking since 2006, for four years, that maybe the government could contribute a $1 million or $2 million. The government has given money to other community centres, but unfortunately the Greek Canadian community has been starved. I do not think all of the Greek community votes Liberal. They vote Canadian and they pay their taxes, so they deserve consideration.

The estimates are really a concern. When the government included in the supplementary estimates the funding required for these summits, I do not know how it came up with the figure.

The summit in Britain for example cost almost $20 million. That country is very security conscious, maybe even more than Canada because unfortunately and sadly, certain incidents occurred in England. There were bombings. It has had other problems domestically and international interference. We would think that Britain would be spending more money to make sure when it hosts international guests that they are protected.

The question arises as to how Britain could do it with such a smaller budget when ours is astronomically high. We are discussing this subject because when we go back to our ridings Canadians are going to ask, “What are you guys doing? This is our hard-earned money”. The government talks about hard-earned money. It talks about choices. It talks about keeping more money in the pockets of Canadians. We agree with that.

I support these conferences. I believe that they have a value, but the hypocrisy around this is really hurting Canadians.

When the current Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism was a member of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, he said that the conference in Nova Scotia was too expensive. Today he is a member of the government, but back then he was complaining about the $8.1 million for a conference in Nova Scotia. Today he is in the government and he is approving $1.1 billion and counting.

I close with this. Those people are now in government. They came to Parliament to do things differently. They are now realizing it is not what they see. I am glad they have had a turnabout. Hopefully when they become opposition they will not be as angry as they were last time around.