Madam Speaker, may I first respond to that point of order? Perhaps you could rule right away.
What I said was that the—
House of Commons photoLost her last election, in 2011, with 32% of the vote.
Business of Supply October 1st, 2009
Madam Speaker, may I first respond to that point of order? Perhaps you could rule right away.
What I said was that the—
Business of Supply October 1st, 2009
Madam Speaker, I suggest that the member read the speech given by the leader of the official opposition. He will find his answers there.
I have a few statements to make to him.
I would like him to explain why he and his colleagues continue to repeat bogus numbers, numbers that the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is as respected as the Auditor General, an independent official, has said were not correct in regard to the government's figure of $4 billion for the Liberal proposal of benefits for a 45 day work year. Notwithstanding that the Conservatives were told in a written report that what they have been saying was not true, they continue to repeat it day after day.
I would like each one of those 140-something Conservatives to get up and explain to Canadians why they continue to repeat a lie.
Business of Supply October 1st, 2009
Madam Speaker, I am proud to participate in this debate on the Liberal motion, a motion of non-confidence in this Conservative government.
When listening to my leader's speech on the non-confidence motion, he said something that really resonated with me and I know that it will really resonate with thousands of Canadians and Quebeckers. He said that in the eyes of the Conservatives, adversaries are enemies and that this Conservative government and all Conservative members currently sitting in this House have demonstrated, over the past four years, that they lack the moral courage to tell Canadians and Quebeckers the truth.
Let me give an example. I was a member of the employment insurance group that tried to work over the summer. This group consisted of two Conservative members—the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, the Liberal critic for human resources and skills development, and myself, the Deputy House Leader. Three weeks passed before we had our technical briefing. We asked for it right away, but the Conservatives told us that the parliamentary secretary was on holidays and that the planned briefing meeting for the two Liberals had to be postponed. There was a third Liberal, our chief political advisor. Thus, we agreed to postpone this meeting to accommodate the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary.
We finally had our first briefing meeting. We also submitted the Liberal proposal for making employment insurance more equitable, and for ensuring that hundreds of thousands of Canadians who lose their jobs in these tough economic times have access to employment insurance. I am talking about people who have worked and paid their employment insurance premiums. We explained that, according to our calculations, a single national threshold of 360 hours would cost $1.5 billion.
For months, the Conservatives kept saying, here in this House and to the public, that the Liberal proposal of 360 hours was 45 days of work for one year of employment insurance benefits. They kept saying the same thing over and over again knowing that it was not true, but they kept repeating it. We asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer to analyze the government's estimate. The government said that the 360-hour national eligibility threshold for employment insurance benefits would cost Canadians $4 billion. The Parliamentary Budget Officer did an independent analysis both of the Liberal proposal and of the costing and methodology that the Conservatives used. I will quote exactly what the Parliamentary Budget Officer said in his report tabled on September 9, 2009.
PBO calculations show that the Government’s own estimate of the static cost of the proposed 360-hour national standard is $1.148 billion (including administrative costs).
I will repeat that. The Parliamentary Budget Officer's calculations show that the government's own estimate of the static cost of the proposed 360-hour national standard is $1.148 billion, including administrative costs. In the opinion of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the $1.148 billion estimate is a reasonable estimate of the cost of the proposed 360-hour national standard of EI.
Last, the government's total cost estimate in excess of $4 billion presented on August 6 is not consistent with the proposed 360-hour national standard. Why? Because the government included all kinds of people who were not included in the Liberal proposal.
What does the government do? Does the government show moral courage and say, “We got it wrong. We inflated the numbers. We did it in good faith but our numbers were inflated almost four times the actual cost of the Liberal 360-hour proposal”? No, it has continued, in this House, to spout the same mistruth, bogus numbers. It is in black and white.
This is an example of a government and its members who are prepared to say anything in order to advance their own partisan interests.
With respect to the NDP, my goodness, I am someone who grew up admiring the NDP. Some of my heroes are the original founders of the CCF and then of the NDP. We hear the NDP members in their sanctimonious way claim that the reason they are going to prop up this incompetent, self-serving Conservative government is that the EI measures contained in Bill C-50 are so crucial and so important, and will help so many unemployed, that they are ready to put aside the 79 times they said they had no confidence in the government and prop up the government. Is that not interesting?
The government brought down a budget just a few months ago. In that budget, there was over $5 billion in employment insurance measures. The NDP voted against it. The NDP voted for an election and if the NDP had gotten what it wanted, namely an election last spring, there would be hundreds of thousands of unemployed Canadians who would not be benefiting from that $5 billion.
They are settling for measures that will not help seasonal workers, that will not help unemployed workers who work in industries where there are periodic layoffs, that will not help women who have had children and are re-entering the workforce. That does not matter to the NDP.
I would like to hear what the NDP members are going to say to those hundreds of thousands of workers who do not benefit from the measures in Bill C-50. How are they going to explain that they are now prepared to prop up the Conservative government knowing that the government does not tell the truth, knowing that the government fudges the numbers, knowing that the government puts out bogus numbers to hoodwink Canadians? How are they going to explain that?
How do the Conservatives explain that they are prepared, day after day, to repeat the same untruths?
Business of Supply October 1st, 2009
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada said something that really resonated with me, and I sincerely believe that it resonated with many Canadians and Quebeckers.
He said that for Conservatives, all adversaries are enemies.
He also told us how, for almost four years, this government and all of its members have not had the moral courage to tell Canadians the truth.
When I participated in the EI working group this summer, I personally heard the Conservatives repeat over and over that the Liberals' proposed solution would cost $4 billion. But the parliamentary budget officer confirmed that the Conservatives were not telling the truth, and that the proposed solution would cost at most $1 billion.
I would like the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada to give the House other examples of the Conservatives' lack of moral courage, which prevents them from telling Canadians the truth about what they have or have not done, and about their policies.
Criminal Code October 1st, 2009
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-451, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief).
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to introduce this bill to amend the Criminal Code.
This bill makes it an offence to commit an act of mischief in relation to property motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on religion, race, colour, sex, language or sexual orientation.
It is unfortunate that hate crimes have been committed in this country at community centres, religious institutions and educational institutions. The purpose of the bill is to take action against these crimes and to ensure that all Canadians are protected from such violence. The Canadian Jewish Congress, for instance, is in great support of this legislation.
I hope the bill will enjoy the support of my colleagues, as it does by my seconder, who I thank dearly, my colleague from Random—Burin—St. George's.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Infrastructure September 29th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, he is not answering the question. Why does he not want to disclose these figures to the Parliamentary Budget Officer?
The economic action plan report shows that the government has zero credibility. Less than 1% of the funds allocated to green infrastructure has been spent.
According to the report, only 105 jobs will be created in Quebec in colleges and universities by 2010. But we are losing 5,800 jobs per week.
When will the Conservatives stop making misleading statements and start telling Canadians the truth?
Infrastructure September 29th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer asked the government to reveal details about its infrastructure spending. What did the Conservatives say? No, never.
Better still, in its report, the government said that the business credit availability program was working well in Quebec, but refused to provide any figures.
Canadians and Quebeckers deserve better. When will this government tell the truth to Canadians and Quebeckers? They deserve to know the truth.
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talks about how it is unfortunate that I have not followed the committee meetings and the hearings on listeriosis.
In fact, I have followed them. I have read the transcripts. The transcripts make very clear that the National Microbiology Laboratory discovered the human genetic code of listeriosis on July 18. I have also read the Ontario chief medical officer's report of April 2009 in which he clearly states that he only received the notification on July 30. I have also read the report that the minister tabled on April 17 in which he claimed that the National Microbiology Laboratory informed Ontario's chief medical officer on July 18.
I would suggest that the member go back and do his homework. It is typical of the Conservatives to obfuscate the facts and then turn around and attack other people. I suggest he does his homework. Maybe he and his government might want to tell the truth for once. Which was it, the 18th or the 30th?
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to once again question the government on an issue of lack of transparency and lack of truthfulness on the part of the government.
During question period on April 21, my colleague for Malpeque and I asked the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to clarify some information in a report that he had tabled on April 17. In the report that he tabled, he claimed that on July 18, 2008, the National Microbiology Laboratory had informed the Ontario Minister of Health that it discovered matching genetic fingerprints in two separate human cases of listeria.
Everyone knows that when the listeriosis crisis hit, 22 Canadian lives were lost. However, Ontario's Chief Medical Officer of Health contradicted the report of the government and said that the information was in fact received on July 30 and not July 18 as the minister's report contended. We asked the minister to please clarify whether it was on the 18th or the 30th.
At that time, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture claimed that the matters and issues had all been dealt with in committee. He said:
Mr. Speaker, all of these questions were answered in the subcommittee last night. We heard from both Mr. McCain of Maple Leaf Foods and from the CFIA itself...I would recommend that he review the transcripts.
I reviewed the transcripts, and there is no clarification there. I ask the government once again when, in fact, was the Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health informed that the National Microbiology Laboratory had discovered matching genetic fingerprints in two separate human cases of listeria? Was it on July 18 as the minister claimed in the report tabled in the House on Friday, April 17, or was it July 30, as the Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health mentions in his report of April 2009?
It is a simple question. Which is it?
Petitions September 28th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, the final petition bears quite a few signatures calling upon the government to exempt hospitals from remitting the GST collected on their property to the Canada Revenue Agency. These petitioners state that the GST collected should be remitted to the appropriate hospital foundation so the funds may be used to purchase medical equipment.