Debates of Sept. 20th, 2012

National Defence

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

Mr. Speaker, no money has been spent on the purchase of any new aircraft at this point.

The secretariat is in fact in charge of not only looking at the cost of replacing the CF-18 but also at the requirements of replacing the CF-18.

The Auditor General has told us that we are on the right track and that we are taking steps in the right direction. We are working with his office. I thank all of the officials, including the Department of National Defence, for working closely with the Auditor General's office.

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

Mr. Speaker, clearly the minister does not understand the gravity of the situation. Whether it is the math or physics missing from the minister's calculations, I do not know. However, simply put, when a plane loses its only engine, it does not stay in the air.

Rather than spending time and money on an F-35 secretariat to decide whether or not the F-35 is better, why does the minister not hold an open competition to decide what plane meets our national defence interests and those of the pilots we ask to defend this nation?

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

Mr. Speaker, of course part of the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat is the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Air Force. This secretariat is in place to ensure there is full transparency and due diligence while we move forward to make a decision about replacing our CF-18s.

At this point no purchase has been made and no money will be spent until the secretariat reviews the costs associated with replacing the CF-18s and also the requirements necessary to replace the CF-18s.

Chief Electoral Officer

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

Mr. Speaker, the F-35 is not the only file where the Conservatives have fallen down on the job. Six months ago, they voted in favour of our motion urging the government to expand the powers of the Chief Electoral Officer.

The deadline has arrived. When will the government take action?

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

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member to his new critic position. This is going to be a challenging position for him because it was his party, the NDP, that had to return hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal donations from unions. It will be a challenging position for him.

As for the motion, a comprehensive proposal will be put forward shortly.

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

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that New Democrats co-operated with Elections Canada, and in fact—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. The hon. member for Toronto—Danforth has the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats co-operated with Elections Canada and in fact were praised by Elections Canada for that co-operation, while the Conservatives had to plead guilty to breaking election laws. The Conservatives paid the largest fine available and wasted over $2 million taking Elections Canada to court.

If the minister of state says that something will be tabled, forgive me for not understanding that deadlines are there to be kept. The government promised to answer the committee—

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

Mr. Speaker, again I will say that a comprehensive proposal regarding that motion will be put forward in due course. However, I want to remind the hon. member that hundreds of thousands of dollars in sponsorship was given by their big union bosses in the unions. They had to repay it. It was an illegal donation.

Ethics

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

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to ethics, the Conservatives are a farce and a bad joke. While the Prime Minister's chief of staff takes calls from his lobbyist friends as though it were acceptable, and the Minister of Industry practically moves his office into that of the Ethics Commissioner in order not to waste time, the Conservatives are promising to change the conflict of interest laws, but are not providing any details, nothing, niet, nada, nemaii. They are making excuses and already justifying their broken promises.

Why are the Conservatives afraid of tightening the ethics rules?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have already tightened the rules. The problem is that the NDP has already broken these rules by accepting $340,000 from unions, which is illegal.

I have a very specific question for the hon. member. He gave more than $3,000 to Québec solidaire, the most sovereignist party in Quebec. Is he a federalist or not?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have three words to say in this House: in and out. Seriously, the Conservatives can attempt to distract us, but the facts are the facts and they are troubling. People cannot trust a government that is mired in scandals and mismanagement.

The Minister of Industry alone is undermining the credibility of the entire Government of Canada. He was caught red-handed in a conflict of interest by the Ethics Commissioner, who is conducting an investigation of two other matters in which the minister is involved. That is shocking.

As long as the Minister of Industry passes GO and collects $200, they will have no credibility on the issue of ethics.

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

Mr. Speaker, I asked a clear question. I asked if the member was now a federalist. He responded, “In and out.” That raises a lot of interesting questions about his position on the country we live in and the Parliament he serves in. Does he believe that his province should be in the country or out of the country?

On this side, we are clear: We want Quebec in. We believe in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is sad that he is using a maple leaf as a fig leaf to hide the ethical abuse of the government.

Let us talk about the loopholes that the government is refusing to clean up.

Let us take the example of junkets. On the one hand, we have Liberals and Conservatives, and I think even the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, travelling on an expensive junket on the dime of a mining giant. On the other hand, an MP might take a phone call from an environmental group, for example, and yet on the lobbyist registry those very different actions are treated the same.

Therefore, it is not a question about the travel here. The question is why will they not close the loopholes for this kind of backroom dealing?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, we have made it clear, as indeed did the NDP members of the committee, that the act is working well. We of course introduced this at the start of our term in government. There were some changes that were proposed. We have adopted many of those positions as our own. We are doing further research on the others.

We are acting in good faith. We want the Lobbying Act to be accountable. We want lobbyists to be accountable. We want there to be transparency.

I wonder why the hon. member is so ruffled, because we on this side of the House believe in Canada. On that side of the House there are people who have supported parties that do not believe in Canada. We just asked a simple question—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member would agree with me that there has never been a government that has set the ethical bar so low, and I will not even reference his time as a ShamWow salesman, but even with that low ethical bar, there is still an endless group of ministers and Tory staffers who are doing an endless conga line—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay has the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the minister a simple question. His friend Nigel Wright, and we all know Nigel Wright is a nice guy, but he is lobbied not once, not twice, but three times by his buddies at Barrick Gold. Does the minister think this is ethical, or does he think this passes the smell test? This is a simple question and Canadians want an answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, the simple answer is that yes, the chief of staff to the Prime Minister has comported himself with the highest standard of ethics. He followed the Federal Accountability Act which increased the stringency of our lobbyist rules. That same act also banned explicitly union contributions. Over five years that party accepted $340,000 in illegal union money. The member mentioned ShamWow. That party's political financing is all a sham and no wow.

Pensions

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the government for a separate bill on MP pension reform so that Canadians could see how their MPs support this very important bill in a stand-alone fashion. I did not get an answer.

Is the Prime Minister worried about a backlash from his own backbench members if he does not force this down their throats as part of a single budget bill? I have a proposition for him. How about a separate stand-alone bill and the Liberals will co-operate in fast-tracking it? This is the kind of thing Canadians expect: transparency from their government.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, I can inform the hon. member that we will not have a separate stand-alone bill when it comes to MP pensions or salaries. We will have a budget implementation bill that is focused on jobs, the economy and economic growth in this country, as we indicated previously. I am not surprised that the Liberals and the NDP on the other side have already voiced their opposition to this bill without even seeing it. That is how they operate. However, we are focused on jobs and economic growth for this country and we will continue to be so.

Employment Insurance

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development just not know that prior to August 5, EI claimants could earn 40% of their weekly benefits without any penalty?

For example, Jennifer is a registered nurse in my riding who is on parental leave. Jennifer worked part-time to fill nursing care shortages and keep up her skills. However, the government now has clawed back 50¢ on every dollar earned, making her worse off with the changes.

Will the Prime Minister explain to this new mom on parental leave why he is taking half her wages for covering nursing shortages? Why is the government basically—