Bob Rae

[The Budget, May 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, under the proposed budget changes, the Inspector General of CSIS will be gone. Rights and 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?

[The Environment, May 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I did read the bill, and it is here and here and here. This bill gives extraordinary powers to cabinet.

Everyone knows what cabinet means. It is the power held by one man, in this case, the Prime Minister. This is a huge change that gives even more power to the Prime Minister and none to Parliament or to Canadians. That is the problem.

Why is the Prime Minister doing this?

[The Environment, May 10th, 2012]

Some backup, Mr. Speaker.

There is so much in the bill that would give additional powers to the cabinet, which effectively means giving additional powers to the Prime Minister, particularly with respect to the issues around environment, environmental assessment and environmental regulations. The Prime Minister's reaction in opposition was so completely different when all of these powers were being accumulated around the office and person of the prime minister.

What is the government going to do to resist the inevitable, dictatorial tendencies to give power to one person and one person only with respect to public policy issues?

[Search and Rescue, May 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, on that particular score, surely the Prime Minister is not denying the fact that Mr. Rideout, in calling about the health of his father, was routed to a doctor in Rome. The doctor in Rome did not know where the call was coming from and wanted to know what kind of fishing was going on. Mr. Rideout was so frustrated he hung up the phone, came back and phoned the CBC about the rerouting that had taken place.

Why would the Prime Minister stand in his place and give the House false information with respect to the situation of the--

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2012]

Mr. Chair, the first step in the ten step program that I am familiar with is that we first must admit that we have a problem. I do not see a hope for recovery in that seven-step program until the government admits it has a problem.

If the Auditor General said that the government has a problem, it is because it has things out of sequence. It decided to go for the F-35 without a competition, without the documentation, without a proper decision by cabinet and without cabinet having the information that it needed to have because the Auditor General said that important information was withheld from the cabinet, withheld from the government and withheld from Parliament.

Will the government finally accept that it has a problem and that it requires a review that goes back to the original question? What is the mission for this aircraft? What do we need the aircraft to do in the years after 2020? What is the most efficient and fair-minded way to do it? Why not finally accede to having a competition rather than not having a competition?

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2012]

Mr. Chair, last year, the Prime Minister of Canada said:

This is the option that was selected some time ago, because it is the only option available. ... This is the only fighter available that serves the purposes that our air force needs.

Is that or is it not still the position of the Government of Canada?

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2012]

Mr. Chair, I will try one more time.

I will try to ask the minister the question very clearly in my second language. Is there a competition where all the options are on the table? You talk about transparency. That is transparency.

On the contrary, is the F-35 still the only option? What you are in the process of doing is looking at the costs so far.

Is the F-35 in competition with other planes, or is it the only plane on the table? I am asking a simple question.

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2012]

Mr. Chair, I will try again. The Auditor General clearly found that a decision was made in July 2010, a decision that was made out of sequence, without adequate facts, without adequate justification and without the documentation required to make such a decision.

What I am trying to find out is whether the government is in fact conducting a competition with respect to the replacement or is the government simply reviewing its own decision with respect to the F-35. Does the government stand by the Prime Minister's comments a year ago when he said, “This is the option that was selected some time ago, because it is the only option available?” Is the F-35 the only option available and being taken seriously by the government, yes or no?

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2012]

Mr. Chair, let me ask the minister this direct question. Is the seven-step process a review of the decision that was taken with respect to the purchase of one aircraft, which is the F-35, or is the seven-step process an opportunity for others to come forward with respect to a competition and for the government to review once again the fundamental question of whether the F-35 should be the plane that we acquire. Which is it?

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2012]

Mr. Chair, members can read the Auditor General's report. It is very clear. The Auditor General clearly found that up until 2006, no decision had been made with respect to the purchase of the F-35. The F-35 decision was made in 2010 by the government sitting over there. That is clearly documented in the Auditor General's report.

If the parliamentary secretary would stop heckling for a moment, the critical question today is, is there a competition with respect to the replacement of the CF-18, or is the government's so-called seven-step exercise simply an effort to justify the decision that the Auditor General reported has already been made?

This is a very critical fact for the government to tell us the answer.