Debates of May 14th, 2012

Human Rights in Tibet

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate His Holiness the Dalai Lama upon receiving the prestigious Templeton Prize in London today. This prize honours a living person who has made an exceptional contribution to “affirming life's spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works”, recognizing the Dalai Lama's great involvement in the just causes of our time and the encouragement of scientific research and inter-religious harmony and co-operation across the globe.

I recently met with the Dalai Lama here in Ottawa at the Sixth World Parliamentarians’ Convention on Tibet, where His Holiness reaffirmed his desire for dialogue with Chinese authorities and for their respect for Tibetan autonomy and identity in accordance with Chinese law, and this against a backdrop of increased Chinese repression of Tibetans, leading to the self-immolation of more than three dozen monks.

I trust that all parliamentarians will join me in congratulating His Holiness on this most deserved prize and call for an end to human rights abuses in Tibet, the protection of religious and ethnic rights therein and the release of political prisoners.

New Democratic Party of Canada

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP leader continues to say things to one part of the country he will not say in others. The three western premiers have called out the NDP leader for his criticism for responsible resource development.

Premier Wall called the NDP leader's policy divisive.

Premier Redford said, “I always think it's better for people to comment once they have the information than before they do”.

Premier Clark just called the NDP leader's policy goofy.

The NDP leader is trying to pit Canadians against each other instead of supporting sectors of the economy that create good, high-paying jobs.

The no development party's anti-jobs, anti-growth agenda wants to block development of Canada's natural resources. While we are trying to work with the provinces and territories on job creation and opening markets, the NDP leader is calling for higher taxes and job-killing regulations, and he opposes opening up new markets for Canadian resources.

Simply put, Canadians cannot afford the NDP leader's dangerous economic experiments.

The Senate

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the triple-E Senate is just the latest in a string of Conservative Party principles jettisoned over the side in the interest of political expediency. Who says so? Premiers Christy Clark, Brad Wall and Dalton McGuinty and Roger Gibbins of the Canada West Foundation say so.

Despite election promises, the Prime Minister has abandoned real reform and undermined accountability by stuffing the Senate chock full of Conservative hacks and flacks and bagmen.

The party president, the campaign manager, the chief fundraiser, even the Prime Minister's press secretary and the whole Conservative Party war room is now doing partisan work on the public payroll, and it is a disgrace.

Never mind triple-E. This is a triple-U Senate, unelected, unaccountable, undemocratic, and it is an expensive waste of $90 million a year.

The Conservatives got rid of the penny but left in place an even more outdated and obsolete Canadian institution. It is not a help; it is a hindrance to democracy, beyond repair, beyond reform and should be abolished.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, in an open letter, the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway maintains that RCMP officers who were protecting the public during the G20 conducted illegal searches, committed acts of violence against civilians and committed one of the worst civil rights abuses the country has seen in decades.

Again, the NDP is making baseless accusations.

Today, the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP confirmed that the hon. member was wrong and found that the RCMP acted reasonably and appropriately at the G20.

I would like to give the hon. member an opportunity to apologize to the hard-working men and women of the RCMP who protect the public for taking the word of anarchists and extremists as fact.

It is becoming a pattern. That same member associates with the hard-line anti-Canadian group No One Is Illegal—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. Oral Questions. Questions Orales. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

The Budget

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the budget implementation bill is over 400 pages long and it puts more and more power in the hands of the executive and Conservative ministers.

More and more decisions will be made by the executive behind closed doors, without any parliamentary oversight. One man spoke out against such an abuse of power in the past:

We will protect the democratic prerogatives of this House...against the excesses of executive powers...The people express their wishes as much through the opposition as through the government.

Why are the Conservatives now renouncing a principle that was once expressed by the Prime Minister himself?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, this Prime Minister, this Minister of Finance and this government are focused like a laser on the economy. They are focused on economic growth and job creation, not on partisan games.

When we presented an economic action plan, a plan for long-term economic growth, what did the NDP do to show respect for Parliament? It engaged in an 11-hour filibuster, making a mockery of Parliament, making a mockery of parliamentary debate and virtually almost stopping the Liberal Party from being able to represent its constituents.

We will continue to focus on jobs. That is why we are pleased with the more than 50,000 net new jobs created just last month.

The Environment

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are abusing their executive power, particularly as they go about eviscerating environmental protection.

The Conservatives are eliminating the independent environmental assessment process, dismantling the agencies that do that work, and preventing individuals from participating in and being represented at public hearings. The worst part is that even if the Conservatives do not get support for what they decide in advance, they can ignore assessments and approve projects regardless of the risks.

How can the Conservatives justify such offensive action when there is no need for it? Why are they hiding it in a budget implementation bill?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what the budget does have something to do with. It has to do with creating jobs, creating a climate where there are more jobs, more hope and more opportunity. That is exactly what our economic action plan does. We will maintain strong environmental protections. At the same time, these environmental studies have to lead to conclusions. That is why we brought forward to Parliament some proposals for debate in the House of Commons, to discuss them. What did the NDP do when that happened? It spent 11 hours filibustering it, showing utter contempt for all members of this place.

We are going to continue to focus on the priorities of Canadians, jobs and economic growth, so people can provide for themselves and their families.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that a minister can change the conclusions of the experts on environment even if the dangers are very real. That is the problem.

Equally worrisome is the Prime Minister's proposal for employment insurance, hidden in the bill: open-ended powers to rewrite the rules for EI with no parliamentary oversight. Ministers would decide what qualifies as suitable employment for an out-of-work teacher or an unemployed nurse, and if they do not like it, tough luck. They will be kicked off EI if they do not take the first job that comes along.

Why include this Trojan horse in this oversized budget bill? Why are Conservatives hiding from Canadians this unprecedented state power over what people should do for a living?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, what the government has done is provide the proposal to Parliament to actually help people get back to work. That is exactly what we are doing. We are presenting measures before Parliament so they can be debated and discussed. This will ensure we can move forward on long-term economic prosperity. That is why we have seen the creation of 750,000 net new jobs over the past two and a half years. That is a record of real leadership.

The NDP's response to the budget was to engage with one member speaking for three full days. Shame on the New Democratic Party.

Pensions

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to using their Trojan Horse to slip their employment insurance amendments through unnoticed, the Conservatives are going to make major cuts in old age security. Canadians will have to work two years longer and will lose $12,000 in retirement income. We know that the Conservatives want to save money at the expense of seniors, but we did not know how far this went.

The question is simple: how much will they save by cutting old age security?

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

Mr. Speaker, what we are doing is ensuring that the old age security program has a future. There will be no changes for anyone before 2023. At that time, the age of eligibility will gradually rise from 65 to 67 years, in order to maintain the old age security program.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, answers like that are just disrespectful to Canadians.

The OAS cuts are perhaps the single most important measure in the budget, and the government cannot even say how much it is going to cost. If I rephrase the question, maybe it will help the minister.

Conservatives keep claiming this is about sustainability and that is why they are hell-bent on cutting OAS. How does the minister know that her cuts will make OAS sustainable when she cannot even do the math to tell us how much these cuts will cost?

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

Mr. Speaker, what we are not going to do is what the NDP is doing, and that is to fearmonger.

Let us look at the facts. The facts are that no one who is receiving OAS or GIS will see any cuts. There will be no cuts for those who are receiving it. There will be no change for anyone prior to 2023, at which time we will gradually increase the age of eligibility from 65 to 67.

OAS is paid out of the current year's tax funds. That is what we have to go by. That is why we have to make sure it is there for future generations.

The Budget

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, under the proposed budget changes, the Inspector General of CSIS will be gone. Rights & Democracy will be gone. The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy will be gone. The First Nations Statistical Institute will be gone. The National Centre for First Nations Governance will be gone. The National Aboriginal Health Organization will be gone. The National Council of Welfare will be gone. Environmental assessment will be gutted. Parks Canada will be gutted. Old age security will be gutted.

These are basic protections for Canadians. These are basic ways in which Canadians have rights and governments do not have all the rights. When will the Conservatives learn that they are taking the wrong path?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the third party knows that there is another path. We could let spending get out of control. We could see Canada become the welfare capital of the world. We could see unemployment skyrocket. That is his record as premier of Ontario.

The member opposite talks about the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. It has tabled more than 10 reports encouraging a carbon tax. Now we know why the Liberal Party holds that organization so dear, because the Liberals truly want to bring in a carbon tax on every family in this country. Well, those of us on this side of the House will not let them do it.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear from the minister's response that the government is closing down and silencing institutions with which it does not agree. The Conservatives are telling all these national boards and organizations that they do not like independence, information and criticism and that that is why they are closing them. This is why people think that this government looks more and more like a dictatorship. That is the problem.

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, what we are doing is making government more accountable, living within our means and focusing on the priorities which is what Canadians elected us to do.

We are keeping taxes low. We are increasing funds to hospitals, health care and education. These are the priorities that Canadians have identified.

Why should taxpayers have to pay for more than 10 reports promoting a carbon tax, something which the people of Canada have repeatedly rejected? That is a message the Liberal Party just will not accept. It should agree with Canadians. It should agree with the government to no discussion of a carbon tax that would kill and hurt Canadian families.

National Defence

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about the government's need and desire to control spending.

Let us look at the Department of National Defence: F-35, a $10 billion difference of opinion; Libya mission, several hundred millions off; joint support ship, restated for budget issue; the Chinook helicopter, delayed and a budget issue; the closed combat vehicle, the whole thing had to be restarted because it was so badly handled; military truck, delayed; fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft, delayed; Arctic patrol ships, delayed and a budget issue.

How can the government defend the decade of doofus?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, what the government is doing is seeking to ensure that the men and women of the Canadian Forces, those who this Parliament sends abroad to defend Canadian values, to defend Canadian interests, have the tools to get the job done.

The Liberal Party appointed General Rick Hillier to be the Chief of the Defence Staff, and the man that they appointed to lead the Canadian Forces called the Liberal tenure in office “a decade of darkness”.

Canadians know who is on the side of our Canadian Forces. It is the Conservative government, the Prime Minister, and especially the Minister of National Defence who has done more to support the Canadian Forces than certainly any Liberal has done in the last 150 years.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of National Defence lashed out at the media because they reported on his mismanagement and confusing figures on Libya. However, on October 13, 2011, the minister claimed that the “all-up costs” for the Libya mission would be $50 million. On Friday, General Vance was clear. The minister was given the real all-up costs at that time and could not explain why the minister used the lower figure.

When will the minister stop blaming the media, stop blaming the opposition, and take responsibility for his department and his own mistakes?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Well, Mr. Speaker, he is still at it because on October 13, what I clearly communicated was the cost of the mission to date. I went on to say in the same interview there would be more costs. Then in May we reported the full costs in Parliament. All of that, of course, was conveniently absent from the member's question and conveniently absent from much of the reporting in the last few days.

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

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the minister was sitting on an estimated cost of $106 million. Neither the media nor the opposition forced him to give the misleading figure. The minister did that all on his own. General Vance was sent out to try to clean up his latest mess, but the general was forced to admit that the minister “knew the estimates for sure. In fact, he presents the estimates to cabinet, so yes, he would have known...”.

Why did the Minister of National Defence use the $50 million figure when he knew it was not accurate? Will he finally stand in this House and admit he made an error?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as I just said a moment ago, the figure of under $50 million that was given in October was the actual cost that we had received from the department. Of course, estimates are one thing and what Canadians want to hear is what the actual costs are. I provided that qualification at the time. I said there were more costs to be reported. Of course, bringing all of those ships back and bringing the personnel back does cost money.

What is important here is that this was a tremendous investment to help the people of Libya who were being exploited and murdered by their own government. That is why Canadians were there. That is why we are in Afghanistan. That is why we will continue to make these investments.