Peggy Nash

[Government Accountability, June 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday a different minister made outrageous accusations, and frankly he has it wrong. The PBO has a legal opinion backing him up. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has a legal right to free and timely access to any financial or economic data.

The Conservatives have the nerve to accuse Kevin Page of breaking his legal mandate, even though it is the Conservatives who are breaking their own law by withholding information. If they actually believe their ridiculous accusations, will they repeat them outside this House and provide some examples?

[Government Accountability, June 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in 2010, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board said, “the Parliamentary Budget Officer has improved how decisions are made by Parliament”. However, the Minister of Foreign Affairs does not agree. Yesterday he claimed that the Parliamentary Budget Officer had overstepped his mandate.

Once again, there is trouble in the Conservative ranks. Who is telling the truth?

Do the Conservatives really think that Kevin Page has overstepped his mandate?

[The Economy, June 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, there they go again, lecturing and blaming others but refusing to face their own failures.

While the Prime Minister spends his time at the G20 wagging his finger at others, the Conservatives are ramming through their budget cuts that will hurt Canadians.

Will the Conservatives stop making phony accusations against the official opposition, the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the EU, stop muzzling their own MPs and level with Canadians about cuts to services that will hurt Canadian families?

[The Economy, June 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been busy lecturing G20 countries under the Mexican sun, but he and his Minister of Finance refuse to come clean on the impact of their Trojan Horse. Seniors, the unemployed, fishers and all Canadians will feel the effects of this bill for years to come.

Do they realize that preaching responsibility abroad while acting irresponsibly at home is pure and simple hypocrisy?

[Pensions, June 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the facts have a well-known anti-Conservative bias. However, even though it is on the chopping block, the very last Statistics Canada report on labour and income dynamics that was released today shows that over the last few years, seniors' income has declined and the number of seniors living in poverty has increased.

The Conservatives' cuts to old age security and the guaranteed income supplement only hurt seniors more. Why are the Conservatives ignoring the facts and punishing seniors with this Trojan Horse budget bill?

[Government Accountability, June 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise that the Conservatives are hiding information on the budget. Cuts to services are going to be worse than previously announced. More jobs will be lost and government services will be jeopardized. By refusing to share this information, the Conservatives are asking their own members to cast a blind vote. Legal opinions are clear: the Conservatives are breaking the law.

Why are the Conservatives refusing to properly inform the Parliamentary Budget Officer? Why so many blind votes?

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, that question makes me feel profoundly sad, because if that is the kind of approach the member wants environmental organizations to take, I can see why every major environmental organization in this country is somehow deemed radical by the government. It is because they are speaking the truth by saying that what the government is doing will harm the environment, will gut our environmental protections, will harm fish habitats and our wilderness areas.

The government is eliminating the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, which was a body designed to bring together diverse viewpoints from business, environmentalists and first nations and bring people together to try to find common ground. Is that not what we should be doing here in Parliament—trying to find common ground and concrete solutions that work for Canadians—rather than demonizing environmentalists, disregarding their reports and somehow having this doublespeak that pretends what is bad for the environment is good for the environment? I do not think that is helpful.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 18th, 2012]

I thank my colleague from York South—Weston for his excellent question and his diligent work on this file around the issue of diesel and the impact of diesel exhaust. He is quite right that in many of our communities in the west end of Toronto, we are facing the prospect of diesel trains rolling through neighbourhoods every seven minutes, past child care centres, schools, community centres and homes built near the tracks.

This dramatic densification of rail traffic is completely unjustifiable. We have been pushing that this train be electric so that it would be clean, efficient and without noise or vibration, like cities all around the world have.

However, without the requirement to consider human health as part of the environmental assessment, how would we ever capture this important, crucial element of the carcinogenic properties of diesel and the very dramatic, concrete impact that would have on communities in my riding and throughout the west end of Toronto?

I thank my colleague for his question and hard work on this issue. I would also call on my counterparts in government. If they want to do something to create jobs, to improve the environment, to build communities and to support our urban environment, then they should invest in clean trains, especially for the air-rail link in Toronto.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. However, I disagree with the implication that somehow we are opposed to any debate or discussion about the environmental regulations. Absolutely not.

Of course we are happy to open up the process to consult with those affected, but not just the mining businesses. Let us talk to first nations and the people who work in the mines about workplace protection and communities that are affected. Let us talk to the broader public so that we are not just catering to one group or one region.

It is important that we have sustainable development of our natural resources. I think most Canadians would agree, but goodness gracious, let us not destroy fish habitat or run roughshod over sensitive wilderness within Canada of which we are all so proud.

Let us not run roughshod over our democratic institutions. Let us have a fair, open debate, consult broadly and then make a reasoned decision. That is what we are asking for.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question and for his support for my reasoned amendment.

I would just reach out to other members of the House. I have heard some members on the Conservative side argue that in order to prevent the mega quarry being built in Melancthon township in southern Ontario, they are calling for an environmental assessment, an environmental assessment that would be deleted by Bill C-38.

I would like to reach out to members on the other side, to think about their constituents, to think about their families, to think about the future of their communities and to vote their conscience to understand what the bill would mean for all Canadians, not now alone but for decades going forward, and all it takes is 13 members on the other side to vote their conscience and then we could win this amendment, break up the bill and have a proper debate going forward. The government has the power to do that. These individual members have the power to do that, and I would urge them to do so.