Bob Rae

[Auditor General, November 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I still see a problem here. First, when the minister clearly states that I have attacked someone, he should know—and I am looking straight at him—that he is not telling the truth. We are not opposed to the individual in question. We are opposed to the government's position and how it made this choice. It broke its own rules with this process. The minister should see that there is a problem here. It creates a problem for the entire Canadian public service when the government changes the rules like that. That is the problem.

[Auditor General, November 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is not about the agreeability of the person in question; that really is not the issue. The issue is that the government set out in a written announcement with respect to the posting of a public position, an officer of Parliament, that the position required official bilingualism. It required a capacity in our two official languages in order to be able to hold the job. That was set out as a fundamental characteristic of the post.

The Conservatives then changed the rules at the end of the game. Since when is it fair or reasonable to do that? It is not. It is whimsical, arbitrary, capricious, and it is wrong. It is illegitimate, and the government should know it.

[Auditor General, November 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, there is a serious flaw in the process that was used to appoint the Auditor General. The government announced that the position was a bilingual one and that official bilingualism was an essential qualification for the position. The Canada Gazette used the phrase “proficiency in both official languages”.

Why does the government keep insisting that there are no problems with the basic process used in this appointment?

[Veterans, November 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Let the record show that when a member of the House rose to pay tribute to the veterans of our country on behalf of his political party, a party with which I do not agree, the members of the Conservative Party, would not allow that member to speak.

It is shameful that there are people in this House who do not want to hear the opinions of others. It is shameful.

[Auditor General, November 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the process for appointing an Auditor General is seriously flawed. The government cannot announce in a job posting that a position requires proficiency in both official languages and then appoint someone who is not qualified based on the government's own requirements. This is an affront to the principles of natural justice.

Will the government agree to postpone the vote until all the parties can come to an agreement on the appointment of the next Auditor General?

[The Economy, November 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, there is a $1.2 billion employment insurance premium increase at a time when the world economy is hitting a very heavy storm, and when Canadians and small businesses need help. I am asking the government to take off the ideological blinkers. Let the government see what needs to be done and let the government respond to what is a clear and compelling need of small business, workers and the people of Canada. That is what it is not responding to.

[The Economy, November 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the government on the question that I think still preoccupies most Canadians, which is the economy.

We on this side of the House are finding it hard to understand why the government is still pursuing an ideological path when it actually has an opportunity to do something about two very direct issues which we have raised before. The first one is the increase in employment insurance premiums, which makes zero economic sense at the present time. The second is the failure to ensure that tax benefits and credits go to those Canadians who need them most.

Why is the government having such a hard time addressing these two questions?

[Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, November 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the question asked by my colleague from Bourassa, I would like to quote Ms. Stoddart, the Privacy Commissioner. She clearly said that nothing in the federal legislation prevents the federal government from sharing the data with provincial governments. She completely opposes the federal government's position. That is the reality.

All experts, including Sue O'Sullivan, who advocates for victims of crime, and Ms. Stoddart, the Privacy Commissioner, are clearly saying that the government's arguments are completely false.

[Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, November 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, that will be a significant issue in the months ahead. Unfortunately, we have a government that has become captive to an ideology. When we actually look at it and talk to the police, we will get different opinions. My colleague from Macleod was raising an issue of a police officer in his constituency. I fully respect that from the Minister of State for Finance. There will be different opinions from police officers.

I can only tell members the overwhelming sentiment of the police in the city of Toronto and in most of the cities that I know in Ontario. They are strongly in favour of keeping the registry because they believe it saves lives and that it protects them better. They also believe that in situations, particularly in domestic situations, it is an important source of protection.

[Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, November 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I will just relate the fact that I gave the hon. member. Perhaps she did not hear me when I said that, in responding to concerns about domestic violence, what I have been told, and based on reliable information that I have, is that police have pulled at least six thousand or seven thousand certificates. Therefore, they are pulling guns away from people who they think are likely to do harm in a domestic situation.

The member also raises a very interesting question about the nature of our mandate. Roughly 24% of Canadians, who were entitled to vote, voted for the party of the member opposite. I would strongly suggest that she not make the terrible mistake, which many governments have made over the course of history, of over-reading their mandate.

The member and her party should not over-read the mandate that they were given by the Canadian people. That would be a terrible—