Ted Hsu

[Business of Supply, November 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am just a bit surprised by the end of my hon. colleague for Edmonton—Strathcona's question. It sounded like she said she was in favour of an elected Senate.

[Business of Supply, November 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue, because I understand that my colleague from Malpeque would like to speak for a full 20 minutes.

Let me talk about some of the other points that have been brought up in debate today. The parliamentary secretary talked about income trusts. This is an old accusation that has not been proven. The member for Markham—Unionville said that very clearly. He was here when those accusations were first made, and they were just accusations.

Members make accusations every day in the House. I wish that when Conservative members answered questions in question period, they would just answer the questions instead of going back years and years to talk about other accusations. This is an example of how members of the government try to deflect questions by bringing up old accusations. This is not a good way of conducting the business of the House. It is not what voters want.

When I walk the streets of Kingston and the Islands, it is not uncommon for people to walk up to me and make some comment about question period. They say that it must be frustrating, because we never get any answers to questions.

The topic of today's debate is a very serious one. It is about whether we can trust our head of government, and for that reason, it is very important that when the Conservatives are answering questions, they answer them. They should grab the bull by the horns, acknowledge the questions, and give their best answers. They should not deflect the questions by talking about old accusations or about old stories about one's family or about the pizza delivery man. We have heard these things in the House, and this is not what we are supposed to be doing here. This is not how we are supposed to be serving the people of Canada.

It is hard for me to go back to my riding of Kingston and the Islands and tell people that this is what happens and that is why it is called question period. We need to get voluntary compliance from members of Parliament on the government side. This place has a purpose, which is to serve the Canadian people. Questions are asked for a purpose, which is to keep the government to account. This used to be done in the chamber many years ago.

We have to call into question why the government wants to be the government and why it should be the government. Right now, the government has a majority, so we cannot win a vote of non-confidence, but if we had a secret ballot among all members of Parliament as to whether they all have confidence in the government, I wonder if that motion would pass, particularly if the backbench members of the Conservative caucus could vote secretly. I suspect that we might not get all government members supporting the government.

That is how serious this scandal in the Prime Minister's Office is. That is why none of the Conservative members are speaking to this motion. It is because it is toxic. They know that there have been ethical breaches in the Prime Minister's Office, and they know that this is very serious. They know from yesterday's by-election results that Canadian voters take this very seriously. They want to get re-elected in 2015, but it is not going to happen with the leadership of the Conservative Party, which is unwilling to admit and fix the mistakes that were made. That is what we have to be talking about today.

I cannot say whether particular Conservative MPs are here or not, but I think Hansard will show, by the end of the day, that only the parliamentary secretary has risen to give a speech. Maybe I will be proven wrong. I hope I am proven wrong. We will see what happens by the end of the day. However, so far, there is no evidence that other Conservative MPs will be getting up to defend the Prime Minister.

With that, I am ready to answer questions or hear comments.

[Business of Supply, November 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his introduction of a very useful term, “mauzy” in his speech. He sells himself short as a former weatherman. I have heard weathermen apologize for their weather forecast, saying “Well, I was wrong yesterday, the weather actually wasn't the way I said it was going to be”. That is something I wish the government would do. It could simply say that this was the mistake it made, these are all the facts, this is the truth, it made a mistake and it would take the punishment and move on. If the government had done that early on, it would have contained the effects of the scandal in the Prime Minister's Office.

This scandal has consumed a lot of time and resources in Ottawa. The government claims it wants to work on the economy, but the necessity of having clean government, of ferreting out all the misdeeds of the Conservatives in the Prime Minister's circle, has consumed a lot of time. We have to consume a lot of resources to do the proper investigation, and it is unfortunate that we have had to take this time.

My constituency work and my work on the Liberal Party team as a critic for science and technology, post-secondary education and economic development has meant that I cannot be consumed by all the details of the scandal in the Prime Minister's Office. That is probably true for most Canadians. They have their daily lives, family members to take care of, jobs to go to and communities to be part of. They do not have time to immerse themselves in all the details. I am in the same boat.

I hear all these names and it is very hard to keep track of many of them in the Prime Minister's Office, in the leadership of the Conservatives in the Senate and in the Conservative Party. It seems like all the Prime Minister's men and women have been involved in this cover-up. My question for the Prime Minister would be this. If he is really running the country, or managing the country's economy for Canadians, as the Conservatives would like to claim, how could he be so cut off from his own people and do a good job as Prime Minister? It does not seem reasonable to me that this could be true.

My guess is that the Prime Minister must have known because so many people in his inner circle in his office were involved in the cover-up. Cover-up was a word recently used by a spokesperson for the Prime Minister's Office. That is not consistent with a well-functioning team that is responsible for managing the entire country and the economy for Canadians. Either the Prime Minister was involved or he was not managing the country's economy just hoping natural resources prices would stay high.

A lot of Conservative members of Parliament are aware of the facts put forward by the RCMP. They understand how damning the evidence is. They do not want to stand and defend the Prime Minister or try to explain what went on, or to try to put in their own words what they think really happened. From what I understand, there may not be any Conservative MPs standing today to make a speech or to ask questions. So far it has only been the parliamentary secretary who has been up to speak and we know that in question period, it is only the parliamentary secretary who has stood to answer questions when the Prime Minister has not answered them.

I forgot to mention at the beginning, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to share my time with the member for Malpeque.

It is clear that Conservative MPs, having looked at the evidence that the RCMP investigators have brought forth and thought about it by themselves, know it would be very damaging to their prospects in the 2015 election if they were to stand and try to defend the Prime Minister. They can see, from the election results yesterday, that Canadians are very upset by the behaviour and the poor ethical standards of the Prime Minister's Office. They are voting with their feet, by not getting up, and we can see it will be pretty clear

I need to also comment about some of the things I have heard in the debate today. I had not prepared to talk about this, but I have been hearing the remarks from some of the members in this chamber. It seems to me that, for example, the parliamentary secretary has been trying to say, incorrectly I would add, that the leader of the Liberal Party has not been asking questions about the scandal in the Prime Minister's Office. In fact, that is untrue and I stood earlier during this debate to read out a whole list of questions the leader of the Liberal Party had asked in the last few days. Whenever the leader of the Liberal Party is here, he always gets up.

I know the Liberal Party only has 34 seats right now, although 36 seats in a few days, and so we get a limited number of questions in question period. Out of the first 17 questions in question period, this smaller Liberal caucus only gets 3, so I know it is hard for the leader of the Liberal Party to get up and ask a lot of questions, but every time he is here he asks questions. He gets to ask the three questions and he does ask them to keep the government to account. I read out a number of them just a short while ago. Therefore, the parliamentary secretary is making up some things that are totally untrue because there is nothing left to resort to.

The Conservatives will not answer the questions that have been posed to them in question period and during today's debate, so all they can do is resort to personal attacks on the Liberal leader, especially since the by-election results yesterday. All they can do is resort to talking about unproven accusations from the past.

What we should be doing today, and as is the intent of the motion today, is to talk about the cover-up, the fact that it does not make sense that the Prime Minister was simply asked if it were okay for Mike Duffy to pay back the expense claims he owed. This is something that, from what I have heard in question period, the Prime Minister would have expected from any member of his caucus. Therefore, why would the Prime Minister ever need to approve something as simple as that? The implication is clear in the RCMP document, and we have heard it in debate and in question period in this chamber, that the Prime Minister was asked something more substantial. We do not know what it was, but it does not make sense that the Prime Minister was simply asked to approve the fact that Senator Duffy should repay the expense claims to which he was not entitled.

For somebody who shares, along with the rest of Canadians, a general sense of what the problem is, but not all of the details, and we hear a lot of conflicting statements that change from week to week and month to month from the members of the Conservative Party, we need to clear the air. We need to cut through the mauzy, as my colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador said.

We need to clarify what the story is. That is why it is important for the Prime Minister and his inner circle, who have been involved in this cover-up, according to the RCMP, to testify under oath to say, “This is our statement. This is what we say happened”.

I think it will be clear, if that happens, that there have been serious ethical breaches in the Prime Minister's Office. It will be clear that the members of the Prime Minister's staff who, it is clear from the RCMP's statements, have been involved in this cover-up, who are going to be charged under certain sections of the Criminal Code, and who are still working for the government, should not be working for the government. It will be clear that if the Prime Minister wants to uphold the standards he claims to uphold, these members of the Prime Minister's Office should not be working for the government.

For these reasons, it is very important for us to support this motion and to ask the members of the Conservative government who have been involved in this scandal in the Prime Minister's Office to testify under oath, state very clearly what they believe happened, and clear the air and put some sunlight through the mauzy for the people of Canada.

[Business of Supply, November 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to address the remarks made by the parliamentary secretary, who claimed that the leader of the Liberal Party has not been asking questions. If I may read directly from Hansard, I have the leader of the Liberal Party saying:

Canadians deserve leaders who tell the truth. The RCMP revealed this morning that the Prime Minister's Office was guilty of corruption and that the government has been covering up for months.

Very recently there was this:

...Canadians across the country have had doubts about what this government has been telling them. Today, we learned that the Prime Minister did in fact mislead the House.

Then again very recently, there was this:

Senator Gerstein was aware of the Duffy affair and he still has his job. The people in the Prime Minister's Office involved in this scheme were simply shuffled off. Canadians across the country want their MPs to express the will of their constituents....

In another statement just recently, the leader of the Liberal Party was keeping the government to account by saying:

...in this sordid saga...Senator Gerstein admitted that he was aware of the arrangement between Nigel Wright and Mike Duffy. The Prime Minister fired Nigel Wright because of his cheque and his silence. He admitted that Senator Gerstein....

Over and over again, the leader of the Liberal Party has been asking questions. I ask my colleague from Saint-Laurent—Cartierville whether or not the point made by the parliamentary secretary is correct.

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, let me start by re-emphasizing what my colleague from Winnipeg North said. The important thing is that we have to look at the fact that the federal government has not paid attention to the environmental costs. We have to be absolutely clear that it is very important to make sure we have those environmental costs covered and that we are mitigating any damage and extracting real value.

However, we have to also remember that there is a lot of value in energy. We are going to be using energy. If we can extract that energy and protect the natural environment in a sustainable way, and we have a lot of work to do in that area, we should be doing that. It will benefit the whole country. For example, my colleague from Nova Scotia said that he went to visit Fort McMurray and the tires there were made in Nova Scotia. This is an example of the fact that the entire country will benefit from this.

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is saying that the debate here will not be relevant to President Obama's decision. My response is that if it is not relevant to the only thing left to decide on Keystone, why are we spending a million dollars a day of taxpayers' money on this NDP motion today? It has to be relevant to something that really matters, that being the decision by President Obama. If we do not address that, we are wasting our time and the time of the Canadian people who sent us here.

On the question of commodity prices, the reason the unions are saying they want the jobs that are coming from this pipeline is that two-thirds of the product that would be shipped through the pipeline is upgraded synthetic crude. That increases the price difference between synthetic crude and bitumen, which makes these jobs in Alberta that the unions are talking about possible.

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start out by strongly agreeing with my colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood that if the current government had taken a more serious and much stronger environmental policy in dealing with the environmental effects of developing the oil sands, we would not be debating the Keystone pipeline today.

I think it is very important to note that if the Conservatives and the NDP had the courage of the Government of Alberta, the Government of British Columbia, and the Liberal member of Parliament for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville to talk about putting a price on carbon pollution that would deal with the environmental consequences of developing the oil sands, the greenhouse emissions, we would not be having this debate about Keystone today.

I would also like to say that it is okay to disagree inside a party, for people in the same party to have different views. It shows that people are thoughtful. However, at the end of the day, the party has to have a position that makes sense. What I would like to talk about in my time today is the contradictions in the thinking of the NDP as it puts forward the motion today.

I would like to note that the upgrading of bitumen in Alberta, which members of the NDP have talked about, is really a separate question from pipelines. Because if we upgrade the bitumen and turn it into synthetic crude, we still have to ship it somewhere by pipeline. These are really two different questions. In fact, two-thirds of the petroleum that will go through the Keystone XL apparently is upgraded synthetic crude.

That is why today when the NDP talks about shipping 40,000 jobs to the United States and brings forth the motion, unions have spoken out against the NDP motion, saying they want the jobs that this Keystone pipeline would create. What is happening here is that the jobs from upgrading bitumen depend upon the price difference between bitumen and synthetic crude. If we could ship away the synthetic crude, we would increase that price difference and make the upgrading more economically viable. That is where the jobs come from. That is why the unions are opposed to the NDP motion today.

There are good people on both sides of the argument about the Keystone pipeline. What I want to talk about today is the contradiction in the NDP position.

Second, I want to talk about the effect of what we are demanding. What is the point of this debate?

With regard to the Keystone XL pipeline, there is one decision left to make, one relevant thing to address. That is the decision by President Obama, in Washington, D.C.

The NDP talks about exporting 40,000 jobs to the United States. What would be the effect of passing the motion on the one thing that is left to decide: the decision of President Obama? It is simply that the passage of the motion would encourage President Obama, increase the pressure on President Obama, to approve the Keystone XL pipeline.

Some members are laughing at this statement, but really, what they are saying is that this debate is even less relevant than I am trying to make it out to be.

Here is the contradiction. The NDP says it is opposed to the Keystone XL pipeline, yet if we tell Americans that we do want them to have those 40,000 jobs and that we want to keep the 40,000 jobs, we would only be encouraging the Americans to approve the Keystone XL pipeline. Therefore, what is the NDP trying to accomplish today and what is the economic thinking behind us spending time debating the motion?

First, a bit of background information before I talk about the fourth contradiction.

The New Democratic Party is one party across the country. The provincial NDP and the federal NDP are the same party. Canadians may not know that this is a bit different from, for example, the Liberal Party, where the Liberal Party in Quebec, in B.C., in Ontario and in Alberta are very different parties. They are totally separate organizations.

The point is that the Saskatchewan NDP and the federal NDP, which are the same party, disagree on Keystone XL. The Saskatchewan NDP says that Keystone XL is a good thing for Saskatchewan. The federal NDP is now opposed to Keystone.

What exactly is the NDP's position on this? Why is it that smart people in the federal and Saskatchewan NDP disagree? I am not saying that one side is right or wrong. However, if the New Democrats want to talk about economics, they have to sort things out first. They have to sit down, close the door and figure out what their party's position is and put some sense into it.

Lastly, I would say that even though the NDP opposes the Keystone XL pipeline, it supports the energy east pipeline, which will transport about 30% more petroleum than the Keystone XL pipeline. Today, it is also talking about these 40,000 value-added jobs with respect to upgrading the bitumen into synthetic crude. At the same time, the NDP candidate in Toronto Centre is saying that she would like to see a moratorium on oil sands development. There are good, smart people on both sides of this argument. However, if they want to bring a motion to the House about the Canadian economy, they have to sit down and sort out the contradictions in their economic thinking.

The point of my intervention today is that I believe there are too many contradictions linked to this motion, and it is important to point them out.

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague for Timmins—James Bay talks about shipping 40,000 jobs to Texas.

On the Keystone XL pipeline, there is one decision left to make, and that is in the hands of President Obama in the United States. When the NDP tells the Americans that there are 40,000 jobs going to the United States, what is going to happen? Americans are going to tell President Obama to approve the pipeline. The consequence of the NDP's argument today is actually to increase the chance that President Obama will approve the Keystone XL pipeline, which contradicts the NDP's intent in putting this motion forward.

I think members of the NDP need to go back and think about the economics of the motion they are proposing today. It contradicts itself. The effect of this motion is the opposite of what they want it to be. I think they need to think a little more clearly about what they want to do and what we are spending taxpayers' dollars doing here today.

[Canadian Museum of History Act, November 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as I was growing up here in Canada, my parents tried to teach me a bit of history from my Chinese heritage. One of the things I learned is that in certain centuries in the past, China spent too much time looking inwards and not looking outwards, and really missed an opportunity to understand where its place was in the world and where its place should be in the world. That was not good, and we have centuries of Chinese history to prove that.

My question for the member is actually an economic question. We are talking about spending $25 million here. There is some question as to whether this changing of the focus of the museum and the opportunity costs represented by spending that $25 million is really worth it. Is it really worth it to spend $25 million on something that, in my experience, in Chinese history, did not work out so well; that is, focusing inwards and not looking outwards to the rest of the world?

[Petitions, November 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Kingston and the Islands there are chunks of the city where Statistics Canada has suppressed data on things such as jobs, employment, and housing conditions because the data quality is not good enough.

I have the honour to present a petition from my constituents that calls upon the Government of Canada to respect the right of Canadians to have access to good statistical information, citizens as well as legislators, and asks the government to adequately fund basic research and free scientists to speak openly on all taxpayer-funded research, apart from subjects with legitimate national security restrictions.