Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe

[Government Expenditures, May 9th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives still cannot tell us what the missing $3.1 billion was used for. Where is that money? Is it under a rock, between the cushions of a couch or in the toilet of an embarrassed mayor's cousin?

The Auditor General's report is clear: the Treasury Board stopped tracking expenditures made under the anti-terrorism initiative in 2010. Yesterday, I asked the President of the Treasury Board what has been happening since 2010. He was unable to answer me.

He lost $3.1 billion because he failed to track spending. How much more will he lose if he is still not tracking expenditures?

[Canada Revenue Agency, May 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of lost money, I want to talk about tax evasion.

Today's announcement of $30 million to fight tax evasion does not even cover the cuts the Conservatives have made. There is talk of $68 million in cuts to a single investigations unit. The Conservatives are sitting on $29 billion in unpaid taxes, and last year they wrote off $2.8 billion. What they announced will just not cut it.

Do the Conservatives realize how much damage they have done to our taxation system?

[Government Expenditures, May 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the government refuses to give us an answer when we ask about the $3.1 billion, yet it claims to manage public money so well. What a bunch of nonsense.

The Auditor General confirmed that his report on spending on the public safety and anti-terrorism initiative covered the period from 2001 to 2010. However, money has been spent since 2010, and the Auditor General does not know if this money is being properly accounted for.

The Conservatives have said that they will fix their mistakes in 2014. In the meantime, can we know how much money has been spent on this initiative since 2010?

[Petitions, May 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by West Islanders who are outraged by the additional fees charged by some businesses to bill their clients.

These people are asking the government to do everything in its power and in its jurisdiction to prohibit businesses from charging clients extra to send bills and statements through the mail.

[Government Expenditures, May 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is funny how the Conservatives like to pick and choose their quotes. That does not help us find out where the money went.

The Auditor General suggested three scenarios to explain the $3.1 billion discrepancy: first, the funding lapsed and was never spent; second, the money was used in anti-terror efforts; or third, the money was spent on other things.

Which one of these options is it? We do not know, and that is the problem.

Do the Conservatives have the paperwork to prove how the money was spent, or did they really lose track of the $3.1 billion?

[Government Expenditures, May 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, when we ask the Conservatives questions about the billions of dollars they have lost track of, they respond by twisting the words of the Auditor General.

The Auditor General also said that it is important for Canadians to know how the money was spent and that the reporting has been incomplete.

At the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the parliamentary secretary said that it was a question of internal management of departmental affairs.

If the information exists, when will it be made public?

[Government Expenditures, May 2nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, responding to the Auditor General's criticisms with a press conference is bad enough, but it gets worse.

The President of the Treasury Board is not convincing anyone with his attempts to explain how he could have lost $3.1 billion.

The Auditor General was clear: either the money was spent on things that have nothing to do with anti-terrorism initiatives, or else the budget envelope expired and the $3.1 billion was not spent.

Could the President of the Treasury Board give us a breakdown on the measures that were funded with this $3.1 billion?

[Search and Rescue, May 2nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, today's last-minute press conference does not fix the fundamental problems with search and rescue. There is a huge lack of operational resources.

I am sorry, but a website and some satellites will not rescue someone. Fishers, boaters and mariners need to be able to count on a well-equipped search and rescue service.

That takes equipment, planes and helicopters. Closing a marine search and rescue centre, like the one in Quebec City, will not help anyone.

When can we expect an announcement about search and rescue equipment?

[Government Expenditures, May 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that someone, somewhere, entered $3.1 billion in the wrong column in an Excel spreadsheet, but we are not supposed to worry about it because the money was undoubtedly well spent. Is that correct?

If we do not know where the money is, how can we be sure it was spent appropriately? That makes me think of a famous quote: “All of this sounds very familiar. The government denied the billion dollar boondoggle at HRDC...” Who said that? The current Prime Minister in 2002.

The Conservatives were outraged that the Liberals lost a billion dollars, but they have lost three times as much. Why is that not outrageous to them?

[Business of Supply, April 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I was a teacher before I became a member of Parliament. Sometimes it feels as though I am back in a classroom when I rise to speak in the House. I will share a funny example. Once, while I was giving a speech, I had to stop because one member was yelling at another member, “You are a child. You are nothing but a child and everyone knows it.” He was yelling that from one side of the House to the other. I must point out that there were not many people here and this little outburst was unsettling.

Should we question how we act in the House of Commons? The answer is yes. The motion before us does that to a certain extent, and I hope it will inspire us to do it much more.

We can elevate the level of debate and improve how members act, to avoid yelling, disrespect or even insults in the House. Canadians are entitled to expect better. All parties can do better. I hope that we will see a change. I may be naive, but I have hope.