Debates of Nov. 22nd, 2012

Government Accountability

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Vancouver East.

Poverty

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, 800,000 children are living in poverty on that record. When we say it is okay for children to live in poverty, we are putting them on the road to lifelong health problems. We are stifling the growth of our children and their ability to live healthy lives and reach their full potential. Today, as I said, 800,000 Canadian children live in poverty. This is a national shame.

When will the government finally take action to help our children grow up into healthy adults?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, the child poverty rate in Canada is less than half what it was under the Liberal government. We are very proud of that. It is thanks to many of the things we have done. The economic action plan has resulted in over 820,000 net new jobs. That helps parents take care of families. The Canada child tax benefit and the universal child care benefit alone have helped 3.5 million families find their way out of poverty, not to mention the benefits of the working income tax benefit.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, no economic plan can ever be successful when so many kids are left behind.

According to Campaign 2000's latest report, one in seven children is living in poverty. This is completely unacceptable, and it is a preventable tragedy.

We all know what needs to be done, but the Conservatives lack the will to even try. When will the government finally adopt a national strategy to reduce poverty and allow children and their families to live with dignity?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what our goal has been and continues to be. In fact, we have taken action toward it, not just talked about it.

We have taken concrete action. We have introduced the universal child care benefit that helps a million and a half families. We introduced the child tax benefit, the child tax credit, the working income tax benefit. All of these have helped lift people out of poverty.

There are 225,000 fewer children living in poverty in this country than in the last year under the Liberals, but sadly, all these things that have helped young people in Canada were voted against by the NDP.

Intergovernmental Affairs

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, whether it is child poverty or whether it is skills training, whether it is a national energy and resource strategy for the country, whether it is the critical question of tax policy, whatever the economic issue may be, these are shared jurisdictions between the provinces and the federal government.

I wonder if the Prime Minister could explain what objection he has to having a regular meeting with the premiers to discuss questions of economic management in the future of Canada.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I meet extremely regularly with the premiers, not just with the premiers but with business leaders, representatives of civil society and others to make sure that we are moving forward on precisely those fronts.

That is why the Canadian economy, on so many of those things, has a superior record and, in particular, Canada has a much better fiscal position than virtually all of the western developed economies.

There are 800,000 net new jobs. More Canadians are working today than before the recession. We are one of the very few developed countries that have achieved that.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's reply to the question about unemployment before and after the recession is not quite correct.

In any event, governments do not operate in silos. Provincial and federal governments share jurisdiction over resources or professional training in the economy. In every other federation around the world, first ministers hold conferences. Why not do the same in Canada?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I regularly meet with the provincial premiers, and I also meet with other representatives of Canadian society. That is important.

Our philosophy on this side of the House is different. We respect the distribution of powers in Canada's Constitution, we respect the areas under provincial jurisdiction and we act within the limits of our responsibilities. That is one of the reasons for Canada's superior performance.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is trouble with the philosophical approach, which the Prime Minister has just explained to the House. As knowledgeable as we now see that the Prime Minister is with respect to issues of philosophy, perhaps I can just bring him down to earth.

When it comes to unemployment and jobs, when it comes to taxes, when it comes to health, when it comes to poverty, when it comes to the reality of Canadian life, people do not care whether it is a federal jurisdiction or a provincial jurisdiction. They want their first ministers to be working in co-operation together.

Why will the Prime Minister not do that, like all of the first ministers around the world?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, precisely what Canadians want from their leaders is not more meetings. They want action, and that is what they will get from this particular government.

That is why we have better growth than most of the developed world, why we have a lower debt, why we have more job creation, why we have a stronger energy sector, why we have poverty coming down, why we have all of the benefits that attract people from around the world to this country.

We have a country to be proud of, a system to be proud of, and as the federal and national government of this country, we take our responsibility seriously.

National Defence

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the F-35 report released yesterday by the Conservatives on the public accounts committee is a total whitewash. It does not reflect the evidence that was heard and ignores the problems identified by the Auditor General in his report. The Conservative report does not identify why these failures happened and it does not even place blame. So let us give them another chance.

Will the government finally admit that the process for buying the F-35s was flawed and mismanaged from the time the government signed on in 2006 until today?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and for Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, the report reflects the testimony that was heard in committee. That testimony was given in an open and public forum.

We accept the Auditor General's recommendation. We have implemented a seven-point plan to deal with his recommendation. No replacement aircraft will be purchased until the work is done.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Auditor General have shown that, several weeks before the last election, the Conservative cabinet knew that its F-35 estimates were wrong. It concealed $10 billion in costs. However, at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the Conservatives tried to pretend that none of that was true.

Instead of trying to rewrite the Auditor General's report, and history, why do the Conservatives not start by being transparent and honest about the F-35s?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, the amount of oversight and due diligence that is being applied to this file is unprecedented. Since the Auditor General's report came out, this government has established a secretariat made up of senior members, including also independent members, one of whom is a very well respected former auditor general of Canada, Denis Desautels, to oversee this process.

The funding has been frozen for the acquisition to replace the CF-18s, and we are looking at all options on the table at this point. We will not purchase any new aircraft until this due diligence is completed.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the F-35 secretariat's seven-point plan is useless unless the air force's statement of operational requirements is not amended.

The statement of requirements was written for Lockheed Martin, with its F-35, the only company that qualifies for the contract. Therefore, it is important to know if the Conservatives and the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat will be working with the same requirements.

If that is the case, will these requirements be revised to allow for an objective assessment and the consideration of other aircraft?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the level of oversight and transparency on this acquisition is unprecedented. We are not going to purchase any replacements for the CF-18 until all of this due diligence is completed. I have told the member previously of a full options analysis, which is a full evaluation of all choices, not simply a refresh. When it comes to the statement of requirements, the review of options will not be constrained by the previous statement of requirements.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the only thing less convincing than that worn-out response is the silence of the Minister of National Defence on this question. It is, after all, his department that is conducting this so-called options analysis.

The minister will know that the Conservative whitewash of a report did not even deal with the Auditor General's finding that the statement of requirements had been wired to select the F-35. He will know, as we all do, that this options analysis cannot be real unless those requirements have been amended.

Could the minister assure us that the requirements to replace the CF-18 have been changed?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, as I said previously, the options analysis is a full evaluation of choices, not simply a refresh of the work that was done before. That review of options will not be constrained by the previous statement of requirements.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, we are getting no real answers from the Minister of Public Works and have no taking of responsibility by the Minister of National Defence for the mess that he has caused with the F-35 fiasco.

Meanwhile, reservists are being turned away from military clinics and still discriminated against in benefit entitlements for lost limbs four years after the ombudsman recommended changes.

We have a failure to implement, or only partly implement, eight of twelve recommendations the minister said he agreed to four years ago. Will the minister take responsibility for that?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member has finally read the report. I have had the report. What he would know is that, in fact, 10 of the 12 recommendations have been actioned. With respect to the remaining recommendations, there is certainly need for further action. It is unacceptable that there would be inequity with respect to ill and injured soldiers. We will be moving forward on these recommendations as soon as possible.

41st General Election

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' incompetence in the case of the F-35s is unprecedented.

The Conservatives are still taking Canadians for fools. They think that they can keep telling us stories and that Canadians will simply forget the 2011 election fraud. But they are wrong. People know that fraudulent calls were made, they know that these calls were made using the Conservative Party database, and they know that they were made all over the country.

Now, the Conservatives have a choice to make: either they strengthen the Elections Act or they condone election fraud.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, we are choosing to follow the rules, just as we led an ethical and clean campaign during the last election.

Let us talk about fraudulent calls. How many of the calls made by the NDP during the last election were financed with the $300,000 of illegal union money they received?

While I am on my feet, I have a second question for the hon. member. Of course he is known for giving 29 donations to the separatists. Is he now a federalist?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the difference between us and the Conservatives is that we received a letter of congratulations from Elections Canada, while they got a visit from the RCMP.

The Conservatives did not even bother to appear angry about the election fraud. On the contrary, they have sided with the fraudsters and are trying to protect them. The in and out scandal exposed the Conservatives' illegal election spending techniques. And the Conservatives have a very strange way of rewarding the masterminds of this scheme: they appoint them to the Senate.

Will we have to wait for the next round of Senate appointments to find out who Pierre Poutine is?