Bob Rae

[National Defence, February 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, then government has to make a decision on whether it will put up with fewer planes for the same price or it will look to an open competition to see whether we can get more planes that would be equally suitable at a lower price that we can afford. That is the question we have to answer. It is very simple. As a party, we have been raising this for 18 months trying to get a clear answer. It is not a matter of just monitoring. We do not need a robocall answer, but a real answer to these questions.

How many planes? At what price? And when are they going to be delivered? Those are three very simple questions.

[National Defence, February 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we are trying to get a clear answer. Since I have yet to receive a clear answer, I will try once more.

According to their plan right now, how many planes are they going buy, at what cost and when? When will we get the planes? Everyone knows—and we agree—that we need to have the planes by 2020, but how many and at what price? My question is simple; it is not difficult.

[National Defence, February 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same minister because I think we need to explore this issue a little more deeply.

The Prime Minister said that the government is going to stay within the $9.5 billion budget. General Natyncyzk said that at least 65 planes are needed, and that is a minimum number. Now Lockheed has said that the price is going to be far higher than the original $75 million. These are three things that just do not go together.

I am asking the minister very directly to tell us face to face, because he and I know each other well, what exactly is the government planning to do as we go forward? What is it going to do about this venture?

[National Defence, February 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the people who come forward with reasoned amendments will not be called Adolf Hitler, will not be called terrorists, and will not be called friends of pedophilia by the minister.

My question is for the Prime Minister. It has to do with the double standard on the issue of sustainability. The Prime Minister very clearly singled out old age security as an issue of sustainability in his famous speech in Davos. I wonder how he now feels about the F-35 situation, where literally every single one of our allies is saying that the current plan for the plane is not sustainable according to their situations.

When is the Government of Canada going to finally come to grips with the sustainability—

[Public Safety, February 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the question of allowing access by police to Internet records without a warrant and the whole question of access to information, which has previously been considered to be private, is now raising questions from the privacy commissioner of Ontario, the federal Privacy Commissioner and many editorial writers, including those at the National Post.

I would ask the Prime Minister if he considers these people to be like Hitler. Does he consider these people to be the friends of child pornographers? Does he consider them to be the friends of pedophiles? This is exactly the approach--

[Public Safety, February 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that those of us who have opposed the government's positions have been described as Hitlers. These are the words used by a member of the Prime Minister's caucus. Yesterday, the Minister of Public Safety said that those who oppose or ask questions about the issue of Internet access are friends of pedophiles. That is the government's approach.

The question remains the same: what is the Prime Minister going to do to finally bring some civility to this House so that we can have a real discussion about issues relating to the Criminal Code, such as—

[Public Safety, February 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in the last week, those of us who have taken issue with the government on certain changes to the Criminal Code have been described as Hitlers. We have been described as friends of child pornography.

Now that the Prime Minister is here, I would like to ask him how he would respond to the comments of a Superior Court judge in Ontario who stated that the use of a mandatory minimum sentence of three years with respect to the Smickle case would be “fundamentally unfair, outrageous, abhorrent and intolerable”. What is his response to that?

[The Economy, February 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the minister mentioned the problem in his response: in fact, the Conservatives are giving gifts to corporations while threatening the security of the aging population. That is the government's position. The government is threatening the pensions of the future. At the same time, it is giving money to corporations, but no investments are being made for new employees. That is the problem.

The Conservatives are creating two Canadas: one Canada that works and one that does not. This is the division that the Conservative Party is creating, and that must change.

Will the minister finally commit to changing the government's policy?

[The Economy, February 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we judge governments based on what they do, not simply on what they say.

The government on January 1 in fact increased taxes. The government did not lower taxes. It increased taxes. How does the government possibly equate what is happening in the real economy for literally millions of Canadians with the fact that you have raised taxes on those very same Canadians?

How do you possibly equate those two things, Mr. Speaker? It makes no sense.

[The Economy, February 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, on the other side, we have a Canada that is falling further behind, a Canada that is worried in the face of the kinds of announcements made, even the announcement made by the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development today.

Could the minister who is in charge of answering today give us a categorical assurance that the next budget will in fact address the concerns of those who see unemployment going up and not down, for those who see insecurity rising and not going down?

Would he--