Bob Rae

[National Defence, March 29th, 2012]

It was 138. Now we have 80 with respect to the number that is there.

The question becomes a critical one, and it is still in place, it is still there and it still cannot be answered.

How can the Prime Minister ensure that the statements made by the three individuals I have named, himself, the Minister of National Defence and the general in charge of the CDS? How can he be sure that in fact we will have an F-35, or whatever plane, within the budgetary amounts on schedule with—

[National Defence, March 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in the early eighties we started out with 120 CF-18s when the order was first allowed.

[National Defence, March 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister square this circle that we have trouble with on this side with respect to the F-35 contract?

The Prime Minister has said that there is a $9 billion limit on what he is prepared to spend. His Minister of National Defence has said that the F-35 is the only plane. General Natyncyzk has said that 65 planes are an absolute minimum with respect to what should take place.

We now know that the plane will cost well more than the $75 million he said that he had a firm contract for in the last election. How will the Prime Minister deal with this critical question?

[National Defence, March 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my friend, the Associate Minister of National Defence.

I am still trying to sort out the contradictions here. The Prime Minister said there is a $9 billion limit on the budget. That is the budget. We do not know what the price per plane is for the F-35s. It will certainly be more than the much vaunted number of $75 million. We will not have 65 planes.

Therefore, my question for the Associate Minister of National Defence is, how will you square this circle? How can you help us clear up this situation? What planes will we get, at what cost and when will they be delivered?

These are the questions that have—

[Ethics, March 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister is not here, I will direct my question to the Minister of Industry.

When the Prime Minister was in opposition, he said on several occasions that it was a clear question of integrity and that it was important to do the right thing. When ministers found themselves in situations of questionable ethics, the leader of the opposition at the time called for their resignation.

So why does the minister not tender his resignation to the Prime Minister of Canada immediately?

[Health, March 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, let us have an honest conversation on this issue. The most dangerous drug in the country today, according to those health experts and everyone else who has studied the problem, is alcohol. We tried prohibition on alcohol. It proved to be a disastrous and expensive failure.

The Minister of National Defence just announced yesterday that Canada would now join the war on drugs in Central America and Latin America, just at a time when the leaders of those countries are saying clearly and categorically it is the wrong direction for Canada, it is an expensive direction for Canada and it will not work.

Why does the minister persist in this dangerous—

[Health, March 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the medical officers of health of three provinces, British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan, as well as perhaps one of Canada's leading public health experts, Dr. Evan Wood, have just written an article which states categorically that Canadian drug policy is going in absolutely the wrong direction. It is not based on evidence, it is not based on science, it is not based on reducing harm and it is not based on having a good effect.

Why do the Conservatives still not have a good policy on addiction and on mental health? Why do they have a failed policy and why do they only have a jail policy?

[Member for Hull—Aylmer, March 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as the last interim leader still standing, it is my pleasure to join in the tribute.

I hope the member will appreciate that I will be speaking perhaps with a little humour about the challenges she has faced because I know of some of the challenges that I have faced: the unending deference, affection and loyalty of my colleagues at all times, the lack of criticism that marks every day both publicly and privately.

The member for Hull—Aylmer has discovered what I consider to be one of the basic rules of political life, that the only times people say something nice are the first couple days upon arrival and then the last couple days on the job, and in-between it is a mixture.

I want to say quite seriously to the hon. member that, in the time she has been here, to have been put in leadership of her party as a new member was a tough challenge, but a challenge she met with good humour, great dignity and great ability. I congratulate her for the work she has done and for the strength she continues show.

I also want to say to her and all of us in the House that there are several things in which she can take great pride, such as the fact that there was never a note of nastiness or negativity in the style of her questions. She brought real passion and concern to the issues that affect all of us and it is something that we on our side took note of.

We have watched her performance with great respect, particularly on the changes she has advocated for in the field of education affecting aboriginal people. The proof will be in the pudding on Thursday as to what the impact of that will be, but I know she has brought great passion to that issue as have a number of other members in the House.

I want to tell my colleague that, as interim leader, I am well aware of the challenges of this job. She did it with great honour, much integrity and a good sense of humour, and always with a sense of the importance of her work and without taking herself too seriously. I congratulate her on the job that she has done, but I know that she will continue to contribute to the work of the House of Commons for many years to come. Her political career has just started, and now, as a member, she will frequently have an opportunity to take part in debates and to continue what she has started.

I would also like to take this opportunity to say one or two kind words about the new leader. He must understand that this will not happen very often in the future, but it is important to do this as he takes up his new responsibilities. His remarkable victory at the convention did not go unnoticed by the Liberal Party. We congratulate him and wish him every success in the future, but not necessarily the kind of success to which he refers regularly in his speeches.

Finally, this has been a good opportunity for the House to truly congratulate the member for Hull—Aylmer for the remarkable job she has done and that she will continue to do, I am certain.

[Points of Order, March 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very simple point of order. I came into the House a little after two o'clock and noticed that the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia is with us again.

I just want to say how delighted all of us on this side of the House are to have him back and looking so well.

[Ethics, March 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

Yesterday, his defence regarding Ms. Dawson's decision was that no one was really helped. That is almost like saying yes, he did something bad, but no one was hurt. That makes no sense.

Now we have a new story: the issue of a hunting camp in Quebec, where the minister was a guest of Mr. Aubut, who just happened to have a specific reason for wanting to get the minister's ear.

How can the minister explain this conflict—