Debates of Nov. 26th, 2012

Ethics

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

Mr. Speaker, he talks about skating. He is the one on thin ice, and that ice is quickly melting under the heat and noise that he makes in this chamber.

The member said last week that the donations never happened. We now have in our possession photocopies of the cheques that show that the donations actually occurred. We have at least one of the donors who has said to the media since that in fact he did make the donation, contrary to a report in the paper a day earlier on which the member relied for his false allegations. The member now knows that he was wrong. The honourable thing is to apologize.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am astounded that my hon. colleague would think there is something wrong with making false allegations, when that has been his raison d'être.

Let us go back to claims about the seven donations. We are talking about a deadbeat riding association that funnelled $300,000. There are still donors who claim they have no recollection of having made donations. There are still questions about the donations of people such as Riadh Ben Aissa now tied to the SNC-Lavalin investigation. This just does not pass the smell test.

Will the Conservatives come clean about what happened in the deadbeat riding of Laurier—Sainte-Marie under the Conservatives?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very unfortunate that the hon. member would call an entire constituency of Canadians “deadbeat”.

He should also reflect upon the fact that he, too, repeated false allegations last week. We now have the documentary evidence, which I will, with the House's permission, table after question period, showing that the donations were real and legitimate, and that the allegations of my colleagues across the way were precisely the opposite of those two things. Why does that hon. member not do the right thing and apologize?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have this riding association that gets 2.5% of the vote and raises $250,000 in cash that is funnelled back to the Conservative Party. We are talking about allegations of buying an election.

Speaking of which, I see that the Prime Minister is stepping in to help the beleaguered member for Labrador by expediting a Goose Bay military announcement. The Prime Minister promised to clean up the cesspool in Ottawa. Is his idea of cleaning it up giving plum patronage appointments to the campaign manager and a big ribbon-cutting ceremony for the no-show minister?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the strong mandate we received from Canadians to support the Canadian Forces. That includes making infrastructure investments at Goose Bay and at various military bases across the country. It involves making investments in improving programs for members of the armed forces, their families and veterans.

What we do know from the NDP, the no defence party, is that it opposes us in all of these important investments that improve the way in which the Canadian Forces carries out its important work at home and abroad.

Elections Canada

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has now been eight and a half months since the Conservatives voted in favour of an NDP motion to strengthen the Elections Act. The minister continues to say, however, that he is bringing a bill forward “in due course”. The problem is that he agreed to do so by mid-September. Canadians expect action, which is why the NDP brought forward our Bill C-453.

When will the minister bring his bill forward?

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, we have promised to look at some reform to election laws. I have said that a comprehensive proposal will be put forward in due course. What really hurts Canadians' confidence in our electoral system is when they hear about scandals such as the NDP accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal donations. Then NDP members stand up in the House and continue to make false allegations, which they know are not true.

Committees of the House

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Conservative chair of the Standing Committee on National Defence ejected a decorated veteran from a committee meeting. Now he is defending himself by calling it a simple misunderstanding.

My question for the chair of the Standing Committee on National Defence has to do with the committee’s agenda. Will it now be the norm for the committee chair to eject members of the public from meetings that are supposed to be public?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we believe strongly that all House of Commons committees should be open to the public and that certainly applied to the case in question. That was a decision that was made by House of Commons security, not a decision made by the committee chair. In fact the committee chair said that he would speak with House of Commons security to determine why that decision was made. Our government certainly wants to see that all Canadians have access to the way that Parliament works.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, regardless of the nature of the so-called miscommunication, the whole idea of ejecting a veteran is just wrong. The House of Commons belongs to them if it belongs to anyone. The abuse of power that has infested the government is so pervasive that ordinary Canadians who oppose the Conservatives or disagree with them are treated with contempt.

My question for the chair of the National Defence committee is about the agenda of the committee. Is the committee currently considering whether or not to ask the chair to apologize for his inappropriate conduct?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the basis of that question is entirely false. There was no inappropriate conduct on the part of the chair, in fact the chair has undertaken to get to the bottom of what happened by discussing this with House of Commons security, which is overseen by our Sergeant-at-Arms.

We believe very strongly that House of Commons committees should be open to members of the public and in particular to members of our Canadian armed forces, who do so much to defend us and have done so much in the past. If there is any party, any government that has ever supported them strongly and wants to see them have a say in the future of the country, it is this party.

Science and Technology

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government's war on science continues. The CFIA is attempting to strip the international credentials of a lab at the University of P.E.I. because it does not like the results of its work. The lab, one of only two facilities in the world recognized for its expertise in detecting the ISA virus, revealed the first evidence of the infectious virus in B.C. salmon. After its findings, the lab was hit with two audits and a request for a suspension of the lab's status. What is the government trying to hide?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, the premise of the member's question is absolutely wrong. The management of the lab says publicly that it expected this audit. This was done by the OIE, an international body that accredits this type of lab. It was concerned by some of the results and this is all under review.

Employment

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives allowed 200 mining jobs in B.C. to go to foreign workers. The minister admitted this was a problem but she did nothing to solve it. She could have suspended the workers' visas until an investigation was completed, but she did nothing. The temporary foreign workers are already arriving.

Will the minister now admit that their applications were mismanaged and suspend the visas, or will she admit that the whole program is broken?

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

Mr. Speaker, our government has a very firm belief that Canadians should have first crack at every job that is available here in Canada. We want to make sure that our temporary foreign worker program works to those interests. Why are we reviewing it? To make sure that this goal is achieved.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. Conservatives are mismanaging the immigration file. The minister's irresponsible decision to deny access to health care for refugee claimants is forcing provinces to pick up the tab. First Manitoba and now Saskatchewan are having to pay for refugee health care because the Conservatives abandoned those in most desperate need.

Will the minister stop the divisive rhetoric, reverse this decision and provide the necessary care to the most vulnerable people in Canada?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, this is a typically misleading question from the NDP on this issue. In fact, asylum claimants continue to receive comprehensive, medically necessary physician and hospital services. There has been no change in that respect. They do not, however, receive supplementary and extended benefits that are not normally available to Canadians.

However, in most of the cases to which the member refers we are not talking about refugees. I repeat, they are not refugees. They are people whose claims for asylum have been rejected, people who by definition are not refugees, people who are pending deportation and are avoiding their removal. Is it the member's position that everyone who is avoiding removal from Canada should get comprehensive, extended and supplemental health benefits? If so, why does she not just say it?

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' incompetence on the issue of refugee health care led to general confusion about the types of health care that are covered. Even refugee claimants who were entitled were denied access because health care providers were completely confused. The rules are not clear. Several provinces have expressed their displeasure. Quebec, Ontario and Saskatchewan have all complained about this ill-considered decision.

Will the minister listen to the provinces and reconsider his decision?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, it is becoming increasingly clear that the New Democratic Party wants federal health insurance—not just for basic services, but also for supplemental services—to be provided to people who are not refugees and whose claims for asylum were rejected after a hearing before the IRB.

We believe that the government is under no obligation to provide health insurance to those who are avoiding their removal, but unfortunately, the NDP believes otherwise.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it comes as no surprise that the Conservatives did not show up in Halifax last week.

They did not want to face the provinces' discontent in the wake of cuts to health care for extremely vulnerable people, cuts that were made without any consultation. But that is not all. This morning, we discovered that the minister now wants to privatize refugee sponsorship and cap private applications.

Will the minister commit to working with private sponsors and not just using them to off-load the government's responsibilities?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, this is an example of the NDP's somewhat bizarre ideology. That party seems to think that the private sponsorship of refugees program is a form of privatization.

This program has always been part of our refugee system. It was started in 1979, when Vietnamese refugees were sponsored by churches and community organizations. That tradition will remain in place, but we also have our own government program for refugees. It is a balanced approach.

Member for Papineau

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday we learned of deeply divisive and anti-Alberta comments from the Liberal critic for amateur sport. They were so bad that they were worse than his colleague's, who had to step down from his role as critic for natural resources. The minister pointed out last week that the member cannot possibly stand up for Canadian athletes who are a source of national identity and pride since his comments show that he fails to represent those values himself.

Can the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism update the House on our government's position on national unity?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, our approach is that we think governments should focus on bringing all Canadians together, unlike the Liberal Party, which has made a stock-in-trade of pretending to be the party of national unity while driving regional divisions at every opportunity. Just as we heard from the member for Ottawa South, the member for Papineau said that Canada is in bad shape because Albertans are controlling our social-democratic agenda, whatever that means, and went on to say that basically Albertans do not have a right to participate in this country's government. These divisive remarks reflect what the Liberals do whenever they are in office, and Canadians reject them.

International Trade

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a leaked memo reveals what European negotiators really think about the Conservative approach to trade. They say CETA is unbalanced in favour of the EU, that the EU “list of offensive interests...is larger than the Canadian one” and that Canadian services are on the table while Europe's stay exempted.

We already know the Conservatives are willing to drive up Canadians' prescription prices and sacrifice taxpayers, but what is the Conservatives' response to the Europeans calling them bad negotiators who are willing to sacrifice Canadian interests in order to get a quick deal?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, as we have said many times before in the House, we will only sign an agreement that is in the best interests of Canadians. Sadly, the member is engaging in idle speculation. A trade agreement is expected to increase bilateral trade between Canada and the EU by 20%, which is the equivalent of adding 80,000 new Canadian jobs to our workforce.

Why is it that the NDP will not support us in doing that? The truth is that the NDP is anti-trade and anti-investment. Only this government stands up for hard-working Canadians.