Alain Giguère

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the culture of secrecy must be abandoned and accountability rules must be put in place. It is a common practice to look at a budget over a 10-year period and then, if the amount is too great for the stated objective, to reduce it. That is good management.

Is that what happened in this case? We do not have the slightest idea. That is what we are asking. We are not asking for the moon. All we want is the earth. We are fine with it, but there is no accountability in this matter.

We have no problem with a reassessment of expenditures. However, we need to be informed.

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the hon. member for Nickel Belt.

We are talking about $3.1 billion in a $12.9 billion budget.

Government representatives are saying that there was an emergency in 2001, that there was a real terrorist threat. It never went away. Canada could be attacked and be unable to respond. That justified allocating a budget. The government decided that Canada needed to spend $12.9 billion to protect itself.

Now $3.1 billion is missing. Where did it go? There is no way of knowing. That is a pretty big deal.

The Auditor General said that there is no explanation for the $3.1 billion difference between the funds allocated to the departments and agencies and the reported expenditures. In other words, nobody knows what happened to that money.

Fortunately, we have been told that the money has not been diverted to a Swiss bank account by a corrupt public servant or minister. We have that assurance, at least. Still, it is not so bad because, given what is going on in the Senate, we could say that it has rubbed off on the ministers.

Needs were identified. What became of them? It is like cyberthreats. No one knows what happened to the $750 million.

The problem with the cyberthreat file is that, 10 years after the money was spent, we were blatantly told that our computer systems are not protected from a cyberattack. That is fairly serious.

That is the real problem: there is no accountability. The government chooses to spend money or not. Funds get reassigned, but we are never told whether the critical mission was accomplished. That is the whole problem with this government.

If this $3.1 billion was spent so Canada could be protected from an act of terrorism, that is good, because that is what should have been done. However, we do not have that information. We do not have that guarantee. We were quite simply told that $3.1 billion was missing. We demand to know what happened.

How can we right a situation if the extent of the problem or its very nature are being kept from us? To find a solution, we need to know the exact nature of the problem. That is what we are asking. That is exactly what is at the heart of this motion: we want to know. We do not want relevant information kept from us anymore.

The best part is that in 2010, this government decided to abolish the reporting process. The Auditor General clearly states that that is where their audit stopped. The government did not fix the problem. It got rid of the method for finding out about the problem.

Sweeping things under the rug will not make them disappear. Sooner or later, it will start to get cluttered under there.

In theory, it takes $3.1 billion to keep Canada safe. However, this same government introduced Bill S-7, saying that Canada needs to be protected from terrorism.

What will we use to fight terrorism? The Conservatives have cut public safety spending by $687 million. That must make the terrorists happy. I imagine that representatives and lawyers for the mafia and organized crime are thanking their lucky stars and hoping that this government never gets voted out of power. The election of the Conservative Party is the best thing that ever happened to the mafia.

They have slashed $143 million from the border services budget.

Right now, border posts all along Quebec's border are empty. Fraudsters and people smuggling in illegal immigrants are being asked to pick up the telephone and say they are crossing the border. Life is grand. This government is making every effort to be reckless. It says it will protect Canada and then it asks terrorists to turn themselves in. Well done.

In Granby and Bromont, the RCMP is helping people who crossed the border illegally and claim to be political refugees. That is fine. The problem is that there are some people who do not report to the RCMP. There are some who come straight across the border. Who are those people? We do not know and there is no way we can know, because the Conservatives have cut positions: 626 full-time positions, including 325 front-line police officers and 100 positions directly related to the intelligence directorate. They have cut 19 sniffer dog units that searched for drugs and explosives. That means that they have eliminated, from airports and border crossings, our system to protect against bombs and against terrorists who blow up airplanes. In theory, that should make us safer.

Meanwhile, the government does not know where the $3.1 billion that was supposed to be used to combat terrorism has gone. When I say that the work is not being done, I mean it is really not being done. Another very serious issue is the $195 million in cuts to the RCMP. That is the icing on the cake. It is really no longer able to do the job.

What is more, with regard to search and rescue and aviation safety, we are being told that if a plane ever crashes somewhere as a result of an act of terrorism, if a boat is ever in difficulty or there is a highjacking at sea, the Royal Canadian Air Force does not have the planes or helicopters to intervene, to protect and save the victims of an act of terrorism or any other accident. They no longer have the means to do so.

The $3.1 billion has gone missing. It would have been useful to look at any threats against Canada and use the money to counter those threats, yet that was not done. However, we may have an idea of where that $3.1 billion went.

The G8 and G20 summit expenses raised many questions. Today, the same minister is under scrutiny for the disappearance of $3.1 billion. It that money buried under a gazebo in his riding? It might be worthwhile to go and dig there. We might strike it rich.

Let us not forget that the $50 billion he spent on sidewalks, gazebos and public restrooms was supposed to have been spent on securing our borders. That money was allocated to border protection infrastructure. In order to get re-elected, the Conservatives took $50 million to assure the President of the Treasury Board's friends that they would all get small contracts, that they would all get a little treat. It does not make any sense at all.

It was important to point out that, under the Conservative government, that money was used for purposes other than those for which it was intended. That is clearly what happened in the President of the Treasury Board's case.

The President of the Treasury Board obviously has the makings of a future senator. This seems to be a Conservative government trademark.

This motion calls for something to be done about the $3.1 billion. Is Canada safer from terrorism than it was, when only $9.7 billion of the $12.9 billion allocated for this purpose was spent?

The government has not answered this important question. The loss of this $3.1 billion therefore demands some accountability. That is what Canada needs.

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this morning I had breakfast with people from food banks across Canada, the people who feed those who do not have the means to feed themselves. If these people had $3.1 billion, no one would go hungry in Canada.

The government cannot claim that this is nothing but an administrative problem. We are talking about $3.1 billion that should have been spent on public security but instead went missing. What disappeared? The needs were estimated at $12.9 billion, so what was not done? Did the government forget to automate passport applications or requests to verify when Canadians are leaving the country? What did they cut for that $3.1 billion to go unspent? What public security measures were cut?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's comments. The problem is that he did not describe Canadians' economic reality.

At present, the number of unemployed is going up, the participation rate is going down and household debt is increasing. That is the reality.

If my colleague toured his riding, he would see that there are more unemployed workers today than in 2007. That is the problem. We are not talking about made-up figures. Canadians have been facing difficult economic conditions for a long time, since 2007.

The government continues to rely on the same old measures.

When will this government realize that these measures are not working? How does he explain the fact that there are so many unemployed people?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 2nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this is an outrage. I am furious.

This government is asking us to hastily pass the budget, yet we have learned that there is $29 billion worth of declared, acknowledged tax debt and $11 billion in disputed tax debt, for a total of $40 billion in tax debt. We have no way of knowing how much of that money is going into tax havens. Historically speaking, Statistics Canada carried out that kind of analysis, but it no longer has the budget to do so.

I am outraged because the Conservatives are not asking us to vote on a budget; they are asking us to vote on a sieve. Would it not seem slightly more reasonable to the government member for us look at what we are really spending and what revenue we are missing out on? Could the government be logical or exercise sound management for once?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about an extraordinary economic situation. Sometimes I have to wonder whether we are even living in the same country.

Canada's food banks are busier than ever. Nowadays, almost all young university students have to rely on food banks because their economic situation is so extraordinary.

If everything is going so well, then why are people forced to turn to food banks? Can the member explain that?

[The Budget, April 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in every jurisdiction where governments insist on imposing austerity measures, growth stagnates, jobs disappear and the population's prosperity is put at risk.

Just look at what austerity has done for Europe, the United States and even for us right here in Canada. It has led to unemployment. The latest Conservative budget will not create the jobs and growth that they had promised.

Failed Conservative austerity measures have cost Canada 14,000 direct jobs this year alone. Failed austerity measures have also undermined our economic growth, which is simply not materializing. Failed austerity measures mean the government has the gall to tell future generations they will have to make do with much less than the previous generation.

In 2015, Canadians are going to elect a competent NDP government and send the Conservatives back to the opposition benches, with the Liberals.

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, April 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my distinguished colleague gave a wonderful speech, particularly in terms of advocating for victims. Unfortunately, all too often we forget those people who suffer tremendously.

We also forget that mental illness is a burden for those living with it. Mental illnesses are not something people want.

Could my distinguished colleague perhaps explain how this bill—with some amendments—will ensure that people who suffer from those illnesses receive real support in order to prevent irrational actions?

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, April 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in theory, this legislation should help us support victims. The real question is whether or not resources will be made available.

That is a particularly important element. The bill has to be more than just words. We want this bill, which contains positive elements, to be a useful tool and not just empty words.

Could the member provide some information and assurances on that?

[Public Safety, April 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, communities across Canada are concerned about smuggled firearms that are fuelling daily violence. Instead of increasing border security, the Conservatives have cut hundreds of jobs at the Canada Border Services Agency. They are cutting the number of sniffer dog units and intelligence units responsible for monitoring organized crime.

Why are the Conservatives making cuts that jeopardize public safety? Is that their definition of being tough on crime?