Wayne Easter

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2010]

My apology, Mr. Speaker. I thought it might be the Prime Minister calling to tell us the numbers had increased even further but it was not.

There is a whole other issue of security that we have been trying to deal with in my area of responsibility and that is with the Canadian Association of Agri-Retailers. It has been requesting $50 million from the Government of Canada for about two years to enhance its security around its 1,500 operations spread right across the country. Those are 1,500 businesses that sell fertilizer and chemicals and they are doing their best to secure those operations.

In the United States, which we have to compete against, the U.S. government is assisting its agriculture retailers, who sell fertilizer and chemicals, to put up security fences, security lights and secure those operations so that no one can break in, take materials and use them as explosives or for illegal or terrorist activities.

In Canada, however, where we have to compete with the United States, CAAR, which we met with at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, is asking and has been asking for a number of years for $50 million but both the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of Public Safety have refused to deal with the issue. CAAR was outraged and sent a letter to the Minister of Public Safety about its outrage over this billion dollar boondoggle. It cannot even get a meeting or have a discussion on the fact that it would put us on a level playing field with the United States relative to the cost of securing fertilizer and chemicals in this country and would increase our public security as a nation in terms of those smaller operations and some quite large for that matter as well.

For those 1,500 CAAR operations scattered right across the country to find out that the government is blowing a billion dollars in terms of the summits when CAAR cannot even get a discussion on the matter, is absolutely insulting and it should not be.

The costs of the summits do not fit with the costs associated with other similar summits. The last one was held I believe in Great Britain. The one that was held in Japan cost somewhere over $300 million. The costs of the summits do not compare with what other nations have spent on these summits or even ourselves within our own country.

The summit that was held a number of years ago was put by the former Liberal government in a somewhat isolated location and could handle the number of people who would be there. It was much easier to secure. It was planned from the first instance in a better way to make better use of funding and provide better security and less disruption to the economy overall.

The bottom line is that Canadians have every right to be outraged at this billion dollar boondoggle on the part of the Conservative government which just adds further to the debt of this country. While it is doing that, it is even ignoring other areas where it should be enhancing security, as I mentioned a moment ago about the Canadian Association of Agri-Retailers which would protect ordinary Canadians in their homes and give them a sense of security that illegal acts would not be happening with fertilizer companies and the use of fertilizer and so on to cause damage to their economy and to their homes.

The bottom line is that the government must come forward with the details and explain how it has mismanaged this situation so badly as to get into this overexpenditure of dollars that looks to us as if it is just to enhance the ego of the Prime Minister.

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2010]

The member opposite says that I am being negative. No such thing, I am being realistic in telling Canadians how the government continues to mismanage the funds that taxpayers pay from their hard work. Slightly more than a billion dollar boondoggle for three days, the biggest three day expenditure in Canadian history.

No one is questioning the need for security for summits, which is important, but compared to other summits there is no comparison with the cost of this one. When the Toronto location was selected, City of Toronto officials urged the federal government to reconsider its position due to major disruptions it would cause the downtown core. Mayor David Miller lashed out at the federal government spending on the G20 summit saying that the money could have been better used to modernize urban transit in the city for a generation--

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand and discuss the motion. It has been an interesting discussion thus far on the previous questions and debate here. I will read into the record part of the opposition day motion, which reads that Canadians:

...are outraged at the reckless partisan choices and financial mismanagement that have caused the security budget for the summits to skyrocket to over $1 billion which is more than six times the original budget and more than was spent on security for the 2010 Winter Olympics which lasted for 17 days and therefore the House calls on the government to provide a detailed breakdown to Canadians of how the money earmarked for security is being spent and an explanation of how the security budget was permitted to spiral out of control.

Some answers based on discussion here today and what we are seeing through the media are starting to come forward, but clearly this is a billion dollar boondoggle that lays right at the hands of the Prime Minister. I would think that the Prime Minister would have learned some lessons. He was the guy who talked about this country not going into deficit, took a surplus and drove the country into deficit and now we are even borrowing for tax breaks for corporations from our grandchildren. It then blows $1.1 billion on the security summits that were basically mismanaged from the start.

The then minister of health, now Minister of Industry, wanted this dropped into his riding, for whatever reason, and for a little while in that part of the country there was a sidewalk to nowhere. Eventually, however, the government learned that the location was not right for the G20 summit. That should have been recognized in the planning stages. The government's argument is that two summits back to back is the reason for the additional costs. With two summits, we should be able to gain efficiencies. They should be able to be done in the same facilities with the same training and security measures. It is the biggest three day expenditure in Canadian history.

I asked government members what it cost to build the Confederation Bridge between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. It was an engineering feat to build that bridge and it cost $1.1 billion. The cost of that bridge, which took years to engineer and four years to build, is being spent in just three days by the government probably to mainly enhance the ego of the Prime Minister and give him good TV. It is absolutely sad.

[Minister of Industry, May 31st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, this video is no trade mission. Even the National Post gets that message. It said that it was no trade mission. It said today:

If [he] doesn't understand the distinctions, maybe he's not qualified to be industry minister.

It added:

Picture Hillary Clinton... promoting Mars bars in Shanghai.

Government policy bars a minister from providing a marketing advantage to single entities. Will the Prime Minister act on this brazen violation of the rules?

[Minister of Industry, May 31st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the industry minister cannot seem to help himself. It is one mess after another. The G20 $1 billion boondoggle is largely due to him vainly attempting to shoehorn it into his own riding, until a costly switch to Toronto.

As health minister, he used his title to act as pitchman in a video produced by one of his political supporters.

Does the minister not understand that favouring one company over all others violates Treasury Board rules?

[Ethics, May 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, spin and diversion will not change the facts. What is worse is that the minister still does not understand that he violated the rules. He said that he was ready to act as a TV huckster again.

It is unbelievable to have a Conservative cabinet minister as an ad man for Conservative friends with privileged access. That is wrong and it is a blatant violation of Treasury Board policy, section 23.

If the Prime Minister will not act, will the Treasury Board minister act against this violation?

[Ethics, May 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the incompetence of the Conservative government knows no bounds. First, the Conservatives created a billion dollar boondoggle trying to shoehorn the G20 into Huntsville as a political plum for the industry minister. Now there is an infomercial by the same minister shrilling for his friend to sell supplies to the Chinese army.

The Prime Minister knew about this boneheaded stunt two years ago. Why have they kept it a secret for two years and allowed the minister to consistently violate the rules?

[Ethics, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, this is not about contracts. This is about an ad. This is about privileged access for their friends. Unbelievably, the industry minister used his ministerial title to huckster for his friend's ad in a foreign land.

How many rules were broken? The Conflict of Interest Code, the Treasury Board communication rules, the Prime Minister's code of conduct. Do rules mean nothing to the Conservatives and their friends? Does the Prime Minister condone this violation of his own rules, that he established?

[Ethics, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, today we learned that the Prime Minister was “justifiably riled” when he learned that Rahim Jaffer used his diplomatic passport while lobbying Cuban officials. It left the appearance that he had the backing of the Government of Canada. Now we learn that the industry minister appeared in his friend's corporate ad, using his ministerial title, to make it appear to Chinese buyers that the Government of Canada endorsed the product.

Is the Prime Minister also justifiably riled by his industry minister's violation of the rules? What is he going to do about it?

[The Economy, May 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is all about choices, and the Liberal Party looks at choices.

The government chooses to borrow more money to pay for tax cuts for the largest and wealthiest of corporations. It chooses to slash payments for services to ordinary Canadians. Does the government not realize that poor fiscal choices today lead to economic tragedy tomorrow?

Why does the government play a game of economic jeopardy with our grandchildren's future?