Bob Rae

[The Economy, March 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, in his gloomy presentation to the public, the Minister of Finance said that the answer to the recipe for slow growth was going to be more public sector layoffs and more austerity. On the weekend, he said that he did not like the competition among the banks to provide lower interest rates to consumers for their mortgages.

Can someone over there explain why the government's recipe for the economy is more austerity, less competition and less of a break for consumers? Why is that the recipe?

[Public Safety, February 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I can vouch for the fact that the security clearances for SIRC are traditionally very rigorous indeed. Yet, in the comments made by Dr. Porter, he made it clear that there was scarcely any security clearance for him. How does it happen for him? How does it happen for Bruce Carson? Where are the security clearances on the current government?

[Public Safety, February 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the situation regarding Mr. Porter, I know that the Minister of Public Safety and others have said that of course his name was shared with the opposition parties. The opposition parties do not have the capacity to do a security clearance. They do not have a capacity to investigate. They do not have a capacity to cross-examine. They do not have a capacity to do the kind of work that is supposed to be the work of the government. I can vouch for the fact that—

[National Defence, February 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the minister spoke of adjustments. But the question remains the same. Do these adjustments mean fewer ships or an even bigger budget than the Conservative Party originally planned on?

Fewer ships or a bigger budget—which will the department choose?

[National Defence, February 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we all know that if there were tugboats they would not be painted grey, but they would be painted red, white and blue, the colours of the Conservative Party of Canada.

I wonder if the minister who just answered the question could please answer a very simple question. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that the estimate of $2.60 billion is in fact incorrect and he estimates that replacing the Protecteur will cost about $3.28 billion, but following the American GAO practice, the best estimate would come up with a number of $4.3 billion.

What will it be, fewer ships or a bigger budget?

[Privilege, February 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a couple of submissions to you on the question of privilege that was raised by the House Leader of the Official Opposition and responded to by the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development. My argument has the benefit of being fairly simple. It is not a complicated question.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the question you have to answer is whether a minister who has been economical with the truth, if I may borrow an expression that has been used before, is in fact misleading the House. That is really what it comes down to. There is absolutely no question with respect to the facts that the minister has not been fully transparent with respect to the issue that has been in front of the House for the last several days, which is the question of performance payments made to members of the human resources Service Canada ministry with respect to the repayment of funds in the employment insurance plan.

The minister's categorical statement has been on the one side that there are no quotas, but on the other side that performance targets are an integral part of dealing with the extent of potential employment insurance fraud. It seems to me that the minister has to come clean and that the opposition House leader has in fact raised a point that is not simply a point of debate but rather a point of fact. The government has not revealed and has chosen to obscure the nature of the payment system in the department concerned. The Conservatives have chosen not to give to the House the factual basis upon which they are providing compensation to employees. Instead they are persisting in denying something that is clearly the case.

It is not simply a matter of argument or debate between the opposition parties and the government, but rather it is a question that you, Mr. Speaker, have to answer. That is whether a minister who has told us less than the truth and less than what she knows is in fact misleading the House. That is the important question at hand.

[Employment Insurance, February 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I seem to have stirred up the other side. That is fine. They need waking up.

What is taking place is not only an affront to the workers, it is not only an affront to the chambers of commerce, it is not only an affront to business groups and others who are now coming forward: it is an affront to the nature of the federation itself.

All the government is doing is saving money on the backs of the provinces and on the backs of working people.

[Employment Insurance, February 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, there are two ways in which the government is passing the burden from the federal government to the provinces.

It is very clear how it is being done. It is very clear what the impact is. It is very clear that all it is doing is creating a greater demand for social assistance and a greater demand for welfare at the same as the government cuts its employment insurance.

That is exactly what the government—

[Employment Insurance, February 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister just confirmed what we have been saying for the past three days. People's pay depends on incentives, and those incentives depend on repayments from the unemployed and other workers in Canada. That is unacceptable.

Does the Prime Minister not also realize that the Government of Canada is simply passing the burden of the debt and the economic crisis on to Canada's regional economies and the provinces? The provinces will have to pay more social assistance—

[Employment Insurance, February 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the minister's response, can the Prime Minister confirm that there are bonus systems for managers in the departments? Managers are receiving bonuses because people have to reimburse the government for their employment insurance payments.

Does the government not realize that it is doing something that has never been done before? Everyone opposes what the government is proposing, including chambers of commerce.