Bob Rae

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2012]

Mr. Chair, I am not going to bite either, I can tell the minister. He knows full well that I am simply reading from the Auditor General's report, and I am asking whether or not the government still agrees with that position.

I just read a quote from the Prime Minister of Canada, with whom I think the minister will be familiar. He said that this plane is the only plane available, that this is the only fighter that would serve the needs of our air force.

In paragraph 2.60, the Auditor General said:

Practically speaking, by 2010, Canada was too involved in the JSF Program and the F-35 to run a fair competition.

Does the minister agree with that finding?

If I could have the minister's attention, I know he is talking to colleagues which is fine, but I would ask the minister, is that a fair finding by the Auditor General? Does the government agree with it? If it does, what kind of a competition is it in fact running now? Is it not all just a big charade?

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2012]

Mr. Chair, the critical issue is the government decided to proceed without a competition. The Auditor General found clearly and categorically that the government proceeded without a competition, and that things were done out of sequence and were done without the proper authorization.

The Prime Minister stated last year, and this quote is from the March 11, 2011 issue of the Globe and Mail:

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 still the position of the Government of Canada, yes or no?

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2012]

Mr. Chair, then I assume that key decisions were made without required approvals or supporting documentation.

At the end of paragraph 2.57, it states:

--the formal options analysis was completed...which concluded that the F-35 was the only available aircraft that could meet the mandatory requirements of the Canadian Forces. The conclusion was cited as the basis for the government's decision to purchase the F-35 without competition.

Is that still the position of the Government of Canada?

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2012]

Mr. Chair, I would say to the government members opposite that it might be easier if they had a copy of the Auditor General's report because I am going to be asking very direct questions based on paragraphs from the Auditor General's report.

On page 21, at paragraph 2.50, the Auditor General says:

As described in the following paragraphs, we observed that in the lead-up to this announcement, required documents were prepared and key steps were taken out of sequence. Key decisions were made without required approvals or supporting documentation.

Does the minister support that conclusion of the Auditor General?

[Canada Revenue Agency, May 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is ignoring this by not clearly indicating that the remarks made by the Minister of the Environment are simply unacceptable.

He has a Conservative-dominated committee in the Senate that is going after particular environmental charities. It is not going after the Fraser Institute. It is not going after the Manning Institute. It is not mentioning the fact that the Fraser Institute got $0.5 million from the Koch brothers in the United States. It is not doing that.

However, it is going after environmental charities which are attempting to protect the lifeblood of Canadians. That is what it is doing.

[Canada Revenue Agency, May 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister cannot deny that there is a problem. At the end of April, Canadians disclosed their financial information to the Canada Revenue Agency. They expect the agency to be impartial and they expect that the information will not be used for political purposes.

Why is the Prime Minister allowing his minister to make personal and political attacks against charities that the minister singles out for the Canada Revenue Agency to attack?

[Canada Revenue Agency, May 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, recently the Minister of the Environment referred to the “money laundering” activities of several registered charities in the country.

Given the fact that the Canada Revenue Agency is supposed to be politically neutral, is not supposed to be a political arm of the Conservative Party of Canada or of the Government of Canada and is supposed to be objective and confidential, does the Prime Minister not realize that the kinds of comments made by his minister in fact point to a political campaign against a number of registered charities which the government simply does not like? Does he not understand the dangers—

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, very empty words at a time when those people have served the country so well. Their time of deepest need for those services is when they come back to Canada.

I would like to ask the minister a final supplementary question with respect to the visit to Canada of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to food. I wonder if the minister could explain the embarrassing situation. We are the first industrialized country that the UN rapporteur has decided to visit because of complaints that he has received with respect to food services in Canada, with respect to nutritious food and with respect to running water.

How does the minister feel about that particular situation?

[National Defence, May 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the minister cannot deny the reality of the situation. This year, the government will be cutting services to veterans returning to Canada with serious illnesses. Veterans have to wait four, five or six months for services.

How can the minister justify such cuts to services at the very time when the Mental Health Commission of Canada is insisting that improvements be made and that the federal government show leadership?

[National Defence, May 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in establishing its priorities the government always makes a point of saying that it wants to do the best for men and women in uniform.

Given that today is Mental Health Day, given that this week the report of the Mental Health Commission of Canada is being released, and given that 20 serving soldiers committed suicide last year and cuts are being made in services for mental health by the Department of National Defence, how does the government justify that at this particular time?