House of Commons Hansard #187 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was indian.
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
Mr. Speaker, this has been hard week for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, he made a mistake when he said that the Conservatives would keep their promise to balance the budget.
Their election platform projected a $2.8 billion surplus in 2014, but in his economic update, the finance minister said that there will be an $8.6 billion deficit, a discrepancy of over $11 billion.
What services will be cut in order to keep the Prime Minister's election promise?
Ted Menzies ConservativeMinister of State (Finance)
Mr. Speaker, the first thing we would cut would be a $21 billion tax that is purported to be the only NDP solution it has to getting back to balance. The New Democrats vote against everything that we put forward. All of our budgets have kept us on track. Our plan is working. We will get back to balance in the medium term. In fact, we expect to get back to balance in this Parliament.
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative platform seems to have gone the way of the minister's contingency plan: out the door to be forgotten forevermore. However, the reality is that compared to the platform of the Conservatives, they are off by $5.9 billion next year, $8.8 billion the year after that, $11.4 billion off the next year and, finally, $6.9 billion the year after that.
Does the minister really consider this massive $33 billion in cumulative bad projections to be a small sum of money?
Ted Menzies ConservativeMinister of State (Finance)
Mr. Speaker, the number she has referred to is actually quite small compared to the $56 billion that the New Democrats have suggested they would take out of the pockets of Canadians in all of their plans. The New Democrats stand and put forward all sorts of crazy ideas on how they would raise money, but our plan is working.
The chief economist at the OECD says, “the Canadian economy is doing well” and “the Canadian economy is doing much better than the most of the other advanced economies”. We should be listening to comments like this, not listening to the NDP talk down Canadians.
Bob Rae Liberal Toronto Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, the organization Campaign Research, which has done a lot of work for the Conservative Party, launched an unprecedented and, if I may so, a reprehensible campaign, using your own words, in the constituency of my colleague from Mount Royal. That organization has now been censured by the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association, which has described the acts, omissions and public statements as reducing confidence in the marketing industry.
When are the Conservatives going to cut ties with this organization? When are they going to take some responsibility for their own malfeasance?
Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, this is a matter on which you actually ruled some months ago and I believe it was settled at that time.
Bob Rae Liberal Toronto Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, the matter has not been settled at all.
The question is clear: when will the Conservative Party clearly apologize for its malfeasance, which has even been censured by the organization governing the polling industry? Campaign Research lied about the hon. member for Mount Royal and, to date, the Conservative Party has not taken responsibility for what happened.
When will the Conservative Party take responsibility?
Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I thought the leader of the Liberal Party was an experienced parliamentarian who understood that the rules of the House meant that question period was for questions that had to do with government business. So far has this affected government business? You dealt with it some time ago. It is a settled issue insofar as the internal management of a private sector marketing organization. That is not a question for the House.
Bob Rae Liberal Toronto Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am experienced enough to know when a minister is refusing to answer a question. I am experienced enough to know when a political party refuses to take responsibility for actions which have already been censured by an independent organization. I am experienced enough to know when the Conservative Party of Canada is refusing to take responsibility for actions which the Speaker of the House of Commons has referred to as “reprehensible”. When is that minister going to take responsibility for what has taken place?
Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, there was a time just a few months ago when that member stood in the House and took responsibility, or so he made it seem, for the unacceptable actions which were soundly condemned of one of his staffers, Adam Carroll. He was contrite and he stood before the country and said how terrible it was and how he had been dismissed from that position. Guess what? Just a few months later, when the smoke had cleared, he hired him back. That is his idea of taking responsibility.
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, the height of hypocrisy for a minister is making up a policy to attack his adversaries and claiming that it will increase the price of everything and will even make families disappear, and then presenting a plan that will essentially increase the price of all cars. The fight against climate change costs money, but inaction costs more.
How much money will people have to pay for their car tax?
Peter Kent ConservativeMinister of the Environment
It is the contrary, Mr. Speaker. These new regulations will actually save the money of Canadians over the life of their new cars, up to $900 per year per car through fuel cost savings. Compared to 2008 models, vehicles rolling off the line in 2025 will produce almost 50% fewer greenhouse gas emissions and consume up to 50% less fuel.
The NDP's ill-considered $21 billion carbon tax would increase the cost of cars and gasoline and just about everything else.
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, it would not kill Conservatives to add a few facts to their answers from time to time, so let me help them out. The fact is that we have been waiting for years for regulations on oil and gas. The fact is that Conservatives have not taken climate change seriously. The fact is that Conservative inaction means we are now lagging behind in the global community. The fact is that the minister refuses to share the details of his costly and ineffective sector-by-sector approach.
Does the minister even know what the price tag will be?
Peter Kent ConservativeMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, as I reported earlier this year and as we go sector-by-sector, we see constant benefits. We are heavily into the benefit side of the two sectors already regulated. The results can be found on the Environment Canada website. We are halfway to achieving our Copenhagen 2020 reduction targets.
Our plan is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while the NDP's $21 billion carbon tax is not guaranteed to reduce a single tonne of CO2.
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives started a new practice yesterday at the defence committee trying to block legitimate questions on supplementary estimates (B). With so much mismanagement and lack of transparency, it is no wonder the Conservatives would try any parliamentary tactic in the book to keep information from Canadians. If the minister does not want to be accountable at committee, then we will ensure he is accountable in the House.
When will the Minister of National Defence show transparency and accountability and release the information that the Parliamentary Budget Officer requested on cuts to the department?
Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been here awhile and I remind him I have appeared before parliamentary committees some 31 times. I have appeared before his committee 11 times. I have appeared on the floor of the House of Commons for a parliamentary committee of the whole.
When it comes to these questions as to what are ruled in and out of order, that is for the committee. I was there. I was invited to come to the committee. I answered the questions. The member and some of his fellow travellers spent time procedural wrangling rather than posing questions to me.
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, at the Standing Committee on National Defence, I wanted to question the minister on the mismanagement of infrastructure on military bases. It was a legitimate question, since the Auditor General raised some serious concerns in his latest report. However, the Conservatives blocked this question. Apparently, they did not want any light shed on this issue.
If the minister did not plan on answering questions from committee members, why was he there? Why did he not see fit to adjust the supplementary estimates (B) in light of the Auditor General's concerns about infrastructure on military bases?
Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, as I just indicated, and the record is clear, I have appeared before parliamentary committees some 33 times. With respect to what was in the supplementary estimates (B), that is exactly what I was there to answer questions on. It just so happens that the member's particular question was not found in the estimates this year because they were not included in the estimates this year.
However, what I do know and what is factual and what is clearly before the House and before Canadians is that every improvement, every new initiative, every program, every plan to improve things for Canadian Forces veterans and their families, the member and that party oppose.
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that the minister has tried to avoid being accountable. In the process to replace the CF-18s, the Conservatives initially avoided analyzing the options and instead went with a statement of operational requirements that was biased in favour of Lockheed Martin. They are now allegedly analyzing their options, but there is no statement of operational requirements.
The Minister of National Defence is in charge of analyzing the options. Why does he insist on not following the rules for military equipment procurement?
Rona Ambrose ConservativeMinister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women
Mr. Speaker, by creating the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat, what we tasked it to do was further analysis. As the member knows, we are in the pre-acquisition phase. We have asked the secretariat to set the statement of requirements aside and do a full options analysis so we have all the information on the table about what our options are in replacing the fleet of the CF-18s.
Matthew Kellway NDP Beaches—East York, ON
Mr. Speaker, at least the minister got to keep his front row seat. The question is this. Who is doing his job? Is it the associate minister, or the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, or the auditor, the economist and three deputy ministers?
Who is in charge over there? Who is setting defence policy? Who is establishing the statement of requirements to replace the CF-18?
Rona Ambrose ConservativeMinister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women
Mr. Speaker, Canada's Defence Production Act is very clear. The Minister of Public Works and Government Services is responsible for the procurement of defence material. The defence department officials are responsible for writing statements of requirements.
Beyond that, when it comes to the replacement of the CF-18s, we have been very clear. The secretariat has been tasked with setting aside the statement of requirements and doing a full options analysis to inform the next step in the acquisition to replace the CF-18s.
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, this morning, an investigator revealed that Bernard Poulin, who is under investigation, met with Senator Leo Housakos on May 17, 2007. In the spring of 2007, Bernard Poulin and Tony Accurso were having conversations about plans to appoint Robert Abdallah to the top job at the Montreal Port Authority. They were planning to enlist Leo Housakos' help to make it happen. In 2008, just before being appointed to the Senate, Mr. Housakos also participated in meetings with hand-picked individuals from the construction industry.
Can the Conservatives tell us what they know about these meetings involving Messrs. Housakos, Poulin, Borsellino and Catania?
Pierre Poilievre ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, what we know is that the member made false allegations on Friday. He talked about donations for which no evidence exists. We have produced copies of cheques as evidence that the donations were legitimate and real.
The member should stand up and apologize for his latest mistake rather than make another one.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's problem is he cannot count. He produced some cheques, but we were talking about the 11 cheques.
Enough with the fantasy fictions, how about the facts? We know the fact is the commission is investigating three key meetings with Senator Housakos, meetings with Paolo Catania, Joe Borsellino and a meeting with Bernard Poulin who was lobbying the government to get Robert Abdallah a key post.
Senator Housakos is the Prime Minister's point man in Montreal. He was given a patronage appointment to the Senate. Therefore, since taxpayers are saddled with this guy until he is 75, will someone over there explain what Senator Housakos has been doing and why he has been holding these meetings?