Debates of Feb. 12th, 2013

National Defence

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

Mr. Speaker, it seems the minister has already decided her annual reports on the F-35 project, but we think Canadians would like to hear from the Minister of National Defence on these matters. He is the minister who is responsible for the F-35 debacle. He is the one who has not been able to get Sikorsky to deliver the Cyclone helicopters. He is the one who refuses to ever acknowledge his mistakes. The Prime Minister has even stepped in to ask another minister to take over and try to clean up these procurement messes.

Why will the Minister of National Defence not stand and at least show a shred of accountability to the House?

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

Mr. Speaker, in fact, since 2006, our government had reduced the average major military procurement process to 48 months. This is five years faster than under the former Liberal government. We are responsible for the successful execution of the largest procurement in Canadian history with our shipbuilding strategy. In addition, we have successfully procured tactical armoured vehicles for the military, upgrades to light armoured vehicles and, of course, the C-130J Hercules aircraft, among many more successful procurements. We have brought in more transparency and more independent oversight. We are fixing the problems.

Democratic Reform

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Conservative and Liberal leaders in the Senate formed a strange coalition to protect their privileges. They wrote a letter in an effort to prevent senators who abuse public funds from really being punished. The suggested punishment for these fraudsters is to force them to reimburse the money they stole with interest. In short, senators can continue abusing public funds and, if they are caught, they simply have to pay back the money.

How many senators are abusing the housing allowance? That is the real question. Five, 10, 15, 20? No one knows. Is this what is meant by Senate reform?

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

Mr. Speaker, the government asked the Senate to consider these issues, and the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy sent some senators' files to an external auditor, Deloitte, so that it can examine them and report back. This is an example of the efforts being made by the Senate to resolve these issues.

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

Mr. Speaker, we see the Liberals and Conservatives coming together to help their unelected friends in the Senate. No wonder they share the same rap sheet.

Did everyone know that Liberal Senator Lavigne lived off the taxpayer for five years after he was convicted of fraud. Then there is the $7 million man, Patrick Brazeau, set for life, thanks to the Prime Minister. It is not enough if Mike Duffy pays the money back because if someone falsifies forms, it is called fraud. If an average person did this, he or she would be charged, but not with this crew.

Why does the government allow the Senate to live like it is above the law?

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

Mr. Speaker, the government is doing no such thing. In fact, the government has asked that the Senate Board of Internal Economy examine these issues, which it is doing. It has referred certain matters to an outside auditor and is applying rules that were not in place at the time of Senator Lavigne. It now has stronger rules and it will continue to review those rules to ensure they are appropriate so taxpayers' interests are protected. I think all Canadians want a government that does take action, as we have, to protect the taxpayers' interests in matters like this.

Electoral Boundaries

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have taken action. They sent in Patrick Brazeau and set him up for life. That is action all right.

Speaking of which, I feel badly for the Conservative MPs who have to go back to Saskatchewan and explain their party's involvement in robo fraud. The member from Regina did the right thing when he denounced this practice as deceitful, but we have a Prime Minister who has been bragging about misleading an entire province. There are Jenni Byrne, Matt Meier, RackNine, party operatives. It is like the old robo scandal crew is back on a reunion tour.

Why does the government not set clear electoral laws that will keep party operatives from monkeywrenching with the system?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission is an independent body, but it welcomes input from the public, parliamentarians and, of course, political parties as well. We have done exactly that. We continue to make the point that we do not agree with the way the maps are drawn, as do 75% of the submissions received from Saskatchewan. We also have new information from Statistics Canada that Saskatoon and Regina are the fastest-growing, youngest demographic cities in Canada. Why would we limit their representation?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives seem to forget that their own deputy House leader made clear these calls were deceptive and unethical, but the Prime Minister is enthusiastically defending this manipulative campaign. Basically, the Prime Minister would have us believe that this is democracy in action, democracy in an upside-down world, maybe. The Conservatives do not seem to understand that these tactics were offensive to the people of Saskatchewan.

What is the government doing to prevent the incursion of such robo hooliganism into other non-partisan commissions?

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

Mr. Speaker, all of us from Saskatchewan reject the premise of that question, the same as Saskatchewan people keep rejecting the NDP for reasons just like this.

We continue to make respectful submissions to the independent Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission. We are well within our rights to do that and we will continue.

The Economy

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have met with thousands of Canadians all across the country in—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. The hon. member for Papineau.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have met with thousands of Canadians all across the country in the past few months. I have personally had people from Lévis—Bellechasse and Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, for example, tell me how frustrated they are when they compare the government's rhetoric on the economy with the realities facing the middle class.

What is more, their Conservative representatives have essentially become mouthpieces for the Prime Minister.

How would the Minister of Industry describe wage increases in Canada? Is he happy with how these increases compare to our economic growth?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian economy is growing moderately. That certainly puts us in good stead relative to other economies. It has resulted in substantial job creation. It has made the Canadian economy the envy of most of the industrialized world.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with answers like that from across the aisle, no wonder the people in Lévis do not think the government cares about them.

What I have heard as I have visited the constituencies of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, Wetaskiwin, Saint Boniface and Halton is frustration. Canadians are frustrated when they compare—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I am having increased difficulty hearing the hon. member's question. The hon. member for Papineau has the floor.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, no wonder Canadians are frustrated when they compare government pronouncements of economic strength with the pressures actually being felt by real Canadians in the middle class. They sent MPs to represent their voices in Ottawa, but they got representatives of the PMO in their communities.

Could the Minister of Finance please tell real Canadians the anticipated impacts on them of even a 1% rise in interest rates on their households?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been quite responsive to the suggestions by government and others that they curtail their borrowing and not borrow more than they can afford at higher interest rates. This is just rational. Canadians are rational, particularly when it comes to residential mortgages. We have seen some moderation in that market, which is good. We have also seen some moderation on the consumer debt side, which is also helpful.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are suffering under record levels of personal debt and according to the Bank of Canada, the fastest growth of that debt was back in 2008, which happened to be the year that saw half of the new mortgages taken out in Canada were 40 year mortgages. Those were the same 40 year, no down payment mortgages that were introduced by that Minister of Finance back in budget 2006.

Will the minister admit that it was his flawed policy decision in budget 2006 to bring U.S.-style mortgages into Canada that has led to this personal debt crisis?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite knows, we have moved four times in recent years to tighten the rules with respect to residential mortgages. That, among other factors, has had a significant influence on the residential mortgage and market in Canada. It is beneficial and healthy to see some moderation in that market.

The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of Canadians are investing in their homes. Canadians are confident in the economy and are proceeding with purchases they can afford.

International Cooperation

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is really disturbing to see the minister's flippancy when presented with the opportunity to explain why CIDA gave $2 million to an anti-gay organization.

On Sunday evening, he wrote on Twitter that funding for Crossroads was suspended. However, yesterday, his office said that the funding was continuing. Funding Crossroads is giving tacit support to an openly anti-gay organization.

My question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Is this the kind of message that the government wants to send to Canadians and to the world?

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member opposite that CIDA programs are delivered without discrimination or bias. That is the case here, and to assert otherwise is absolutely untrue.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this group's views are inappropriate, offensive and contrary to Canadian foreign policy goals. In fact, it would seem that under the government, CIDA does not just consider effectiveness when it funds groups. It funds groups like Crossroads, but at the same time, it cuts off experienced groups that happen to be critical of its policies.

Does the minister truly believe that it is acceptable to fund groups with homophobic policies and give them credibility?