Debates of Sept. 28th, 2010

Government Spending

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Once again, Mr. Speaker, the CF-18, which has served the Canadian Forces well, will be retiring at the end of this decade after some four decades of service. That is why successive Canadian governments, not simply this government but the previous government, planned in advance to purchase a plane to replace that plane when it reached the end of its useful life and to do so in a way that would bring jobs and opportunity to the Canadian aerospace industry.

What is the Leader of the Opposition seriously suggesting? Is he suggesting that we would simply ground the air force at the end of the CF-18? Is he suggesting that we would fund one airplane but buy another airplane? His policy makes no sense other than the political game.

G8 and G20 Summits

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for months the government buried details of its billion dollar G8 photo op, hiding receipts behind a pretense of security.

Now, pried out into the open, are $200 million of that spending, $200 million burned in a Conservatives-gone-wild weekend blowout on hotel suites, car rentals, glow sticks and bug spray; $85,000 for two days of snacks at one hotel alone. It makes the $200,000 they spent on fiddlers and dancers look like a deal.

The excuse of security is gone and the event is over. When will the government come clean with all the details of this billion dollar mess?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, unlike any other government, our government is transparent in respect of the expenses that we have made. We are proud of the accomplishments of the G8 and G20 summits. Canada is leading the global economic recovery, as well as international efforts to aid developing countries.

As we have said from the beginning, these were legitimate expenses, the majority of which were for security. There were approximately 20,000 security personnel on the ground during those summits. The violence and the destruction that occurred proved the need to ensure that those who attended the summits were protected.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, they should be anything but proud. The Conservatives do not get it. They racked up the biggest deficit in history and then tossed on $1 billion for a 48-hour photo op.

While $85,000 was being blown on in-room snacks, thousands of Canadians hit by the recession could not buy groceries. While the Conservatives blew $20 million in a weekend on hotels, thousands could not pay their mortgage. While the government hides receipts, people cannot get jobs.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Who authorized this mess? Who chose waste over the priorities and needs of Canadians?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, coming from an individual who thinks that cameras are a replacement for police officers, that is not a criticism that we should take seriously.

As host nation of unprecedented back-to-back G8 and G20 summits, we are proud of their success.

As we have said all along, the majority of the costs for the summits were security related. Approximately 20,000 security personnel were tasked with safeguarding both summits. Canada was responsible for the safety and security of those delegates and we carried out that responsibility.

Census

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, an internal Conservative government report confirms that abolishing the mandatory long form census will make certain data no longer reliable. The government knew the consequences its decision to abolish the mandatory long form could have and went ahead with its decision anyway.

Why is the Prime Minister insisting on changing the census when he knows full well that this will compromise the reliability of data that a number of groups in civil society depend on?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the government's position is clear. We recognize that some people are a bit reticent when it comes to information about their private lives. We intend to work in a co-operative manner with the public. We are not threatening to go after the public for being reticent. We are working with the public like adults.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government and the Conservatives were very critical of previous Liberal governments for not respecting the will of the House. Now that the Conservatives are in power, they are doing the same thing. The Conservative government has announced that it will not respect the motion to reinstate the mandatory long form even if the motion is passed by a majority in the House. While he is at it, why does the Prime Minister not lock the door to the House of Commons? That way he could govern all alone to his heart's content.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc has said that if people are reluctant to give their personal and private information to the government, the government should withhold their employment insurance benefits. That is the position of the leader of the Bloc. The Conservative position is much more responsible and respectful of the public.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne is in court to remind the government that it has an obligation to provide these communities with services in French and to enhance their vitality. To that end, reliable data on the evolution of francophone communities is required. The changes to the census will permanently affect existing databases.

Does the government realize that by eliminating the mandatory long form questionnaire, it is reneging on its responsibilities towards francophone communities?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, we added two questions to the short form census to better protect the official languages.

We do not believe it is appropriate to require Canadians to provide personal and private information under threat of sanctions. Our position is reasonable and fair.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, aboriginal peoples are also concerned about the changes made to the census questionnaire and are considering going to court to keep the mandatory long form. Their associations point out that aboriginal peoples living off reserve also have rights and that they must be included in the census.

As part of its fiduciary responsibilities, the government has an obligation to develop the necessary tools to be aware of the aboriginal reality. How will the government fulfill this obligation with skewed and incomplete data?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, as I have already stated, we have taken a fair and reasonable position that strikes a balance between Canadians' right to privacy and the need for access to information that is important to society.

However, as the Prime Minister said, the Bloc leader's position is clear, and I quote: “If people refuse to take part in the census, Ottawa could refuse to issue them a passport or pay them employment insurance benefits.” That is not the position of a reasonable government.

Oil and Gas Industry

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while the world is focusing on Canada's oil sands, the government is turning a blind eye not only to the environmental consequences and impacts, but also to the economic impacts of the oil sands development.

We hear about the mutant fish. We are learning about contaminated water and serious health impacts on downstream populations and yet what does the Conservative government do? It gives billions of dollars of subsidies, $2.5 billion this year alone, and there is no accounting for the environmental cost down the road of billions of dollars.

When will the industry be held to account by the government?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

First, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of correction, this is the government that brought in legislation to eliminate subsidies for the oil sands.

We are aware of environmental challenges and we continue to work with the industry and our provincial partners to address those.

However, what we do not do on this side, like the leader of the NDP did, is simply fly over a bunch of working Canadian families and tell them that we will shut down their industry without even visiting. That is what the leader of the NDP did in the oil sands but that is not how this government operates.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister should be better briefed on where the leader of the New Democratic Party has been and whom he has talked to. He should also understand that he has just given, this year alone, $2.5 billion to those very same oil companies. So much for his fancy legislation. He has left the unemployed behind and slammed the door on them.

The government sets aside crumbs for renewable energies, yet it continues to subsidize the oil sands, even though they pollute our water, increase the risk of cancer, kill ducks and create mutant fish.

When will the government hold the oil industry accountable?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, our government cut subsidies to the oil sands. Unfortunately, the NDP voted against that bill, too, but that is what they do.

This government does not say that it will shut down an entire industry without having the decency to talk to the people who work in it, as the NDP leader did.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our former candidate was a trucker in the oil sands and a union president.

It is clear that they do not care about the environment. The Minister of Natural Resources thinks that two days is enough to resolve the issue of transporting tonnes of nuclear waste through the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River in an area inhabited by millions of people.

Will the government extend the public hearings and conduct a comprehensive environmental assessment? Yes or no?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has a clean record. It has always based its decisions on science. This organization operates at arm's length from the government. It has its own experts, and it is the watchdog. Once again, someone here is trying to discredit that expertise. We trust this regulator. Public hearings will be held. The public will be able to make its concerns known, and an appropriate decision will be made. The opposition should stop scaring people.

Census

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada is fighting the Conservative decision to eliminate the long form census because it threatens French-language services.

In court yesterday, we learned that the government knew from the outset that eliminating the mandatory long form questionnaire would make the data useless for numerous federal institutions.

So why are they persisting when they know that their new questionnaire will be more expensive and will make the government less effective? Why?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, we do not feel it is appropriate to require Canadians to provide private and personal information under threat of sanctions. Our approach is fair and reasonable, and it respects the interests of those who want the census while at the same time respecting Canadians' privacy.

It is the position of a very reasonable government.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government knows its decision will make the census more expensive and less effective. It knows the information will be useless to many federal institutions, but also useless to businesses, to charities and to the Bank of Canada.

They know all this, yet the Conservatives still want to make the government less expensive and less efficient. Why?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the Liberals and their coalition partners have a very cavalier attitude when it comes to protecting the rights of Canadians to be free from the coercive intrusion of a government when it comes to very personal information.

We on this side of the House try to respect the rights of Canadians, try to find an equitable way to get the data, useful and usable data, in the words of the chief statistician, and at the same time respect the rights of Canadians. That is why we are a fair and reasonable government.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian doctors and nurses have been clear. They need accurate census data to prepare for pandemics like H1N1, to make decisions where to put our hospitals, where to put the ambulance stations, where to put vaccination clinics.

The Conservatives knew all along that the voluntary survey was not as good, yet they killed the mandatory long form census anyway. Why are they attacking the ability of our doctors and nurses to deliver health services to Canadians?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, not at all. As I have said, as the former chief statistician has said, as the current chief statistician has said, there is useful and usable data to be obtained through a voluntary long form.

On this side of the House, we are balancing the interests in certain institutions and businesses to have access to the data with the rights of Canadians to be free from coercion when it comes to intrusive and very personal questions. That is the obligation of a fair and reasonable government, and we are meeting that obligation.