Debates of March 24th, 2014

Consumer Protection

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, not only is household debt at crisis levels, but clearly the government is doing nothing. Canadians are further in debt, but they are paying some of the highest banking fees anywhere, especially at ATMs. No one should have to pay up to $6 to get access to their own money from an ATM.

Can the minister tell us if he has been briefed on banking fees and ATM charges, and will he commit right now to take immediate action to protect Canadian consumers?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, our government puts consumers first. Canadian consumers deserve access to credit on fair and transparent terms, and that is why we have taken action to protect Canadians who are using credit cards by banning unsolicited credit card cheques, requiring clear and simple information, providing timely advance notice of rates and fee changes, limiting anti-consumer business practices, and ensuring prepaid cards never expire.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, every year, it is the same old story: the banks make record profits while consumers go deeper and deeper into debt.

The banks continue to raise interest rates on credit cards for middle-class consumers. The previous finance minister did nothing to put an end to these unfair practices.

Does the new Minister of Finance intend to bring in legislation to lower credit card interest rates?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP voted against our consumer protection policies and regulations and our legislation to improve financial literacy.

Our Conservative government believes that with better information, Canadian consumers can make better informed decisions in their best interests, and we will continue to put consumers first.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, making the font bigger on a bill does not help protect Canadian families.

Again and again, the Conservatives continue to sit by while financial institutions are allowed to gouge. Canadians deserve better.

One thing is crystal clear: the Conservative policy of voluntary commitments simply does not work. Credit card companies are now backing away from their zero liability policies, leaving consumers on the hook for fraudulent online credit card transactions.

What is the minister going to do to protect Canadians against online fraud and to ensure that credit card companies live up to their zero liability policies?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the NDP, which only talks about protecting consumers, it is our Conservative government that has taken action. We have banned unsolicited credit card cheques, limited anti-consumer business practices, and ensured that prepaid cards never expire. We have also introduced rules requiring clear disclosure of terms in credit card contracts and applications.

Sadly, the NDP has opposed all of our efforts to protect Canadian consumers.

Democratic Reform

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in response to an NDP access to information request to see the Minister of State for Democratic Reform's briefing books, the PCO first refused altogether. Then, after we filed a complaint, it finally disclosed the minister's 200-page briefing book.

The problem is that the PCO blacked out 99% of it. It even redacted what looks to be two thirds of the table of contents.

I have a simple question for the minister. Can he tell us what is in that table of contents that he would like to hide from Canadians?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, the decision on what to reveal is made by non-partisan public servants, for whom it has long been a tradition not to reveal cabinet confidences. That has been the case going back to all previous governments of all party stripes.

The NDP should start coming clean about the taxpayer-funded resources it has been employing to illegally finance campaigns, in the byelection in Bourassa, for example. It should come clean about all of that illegal money. It should pay it back to taxpayers, and it should admit that it represents a violation of the Canada Elections Act.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform's briefing book is 200 pages long. He got the book when he was appointed last summer.

We would like to know what that book contains. However, the Privy Council Office decided to make public only three of the 200 pages, and those three pages were heavily redacted.

Since the Privy Council Office thinks it is acceptable to censor democracy, can the minister show some transparency and tell us whether the book contained information on the previous bill, the role of the Chief Electoral Officer and the robocalls?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, I just answered that question. However, the New Democrats do not want to answer questions about their use of taxpayers' money.

Their office, paid for by taxpayers, was used to train NDP volunteers and for fundraising activities. It is used as a mailing address for riding associations, which is clearly against the rules, and meetings of NDP organizations are held there.

Clearly, the New Democrats are still breaking the rules. They should announce that they plan to pay taxpayers back and apologize for breaking the rules.

Justice

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for the first time since Confederation, the Supreme Court has ruled that a judge appointed to the Supreme Court is not eligible to serve.

The Prime Minister only has himself to blame for this well-deserved snub. As a result of his poor judgment, this seat has now been vacant for a year.

Will the Prime Minister promise not to reappoint Justice Nadon, and will he tell us how much longer Quebec will be under-represented on the Supreme Court?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend would know, there was broad consultation with this process, which included consultation with Quebec certainly, with its chief justice and the attorney general of Quebec. There was an all-party committee of course that looked at the qualifications of Justice Nadon. We also sought information from retired Supreme Court justices and a constitutional expert with respect to the path that was followed.

We will examine the decision by the Supreme Court as we continue to move forward in the process to appoint a justice and see that the Supreme Court has a full complement of judges.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable. The Conservatives argued that the Supreme Court is not protected by the Constitution, that these protections are meaningless, that the three Quebec judges are not guaranteed, and that Parliament has the power to unilaterally make changes to the court.

The court ruled that these ridiculous claims were unfounded. Why did the Conservatives so absurdly attack Canadian federalism and Quebec's weight on the court? Do they understand that what is meaningless in this whole sad legal saga is the way they acted?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, what nonsense, coming from a member from Quebec. It was not this government that decided to table this decision in the middle of the Quebec election.

I remind the member again that in fact we received advice from two retired Supreme Court justices, as well as an eminent constitutional expert whom I think the member is familiar with, Mr. Peter Hogg.

So this is not a position that is somehow out of step with the reality that we continue to use a process that is far more inclusive than that of the hon. member's party when he was in power.

Democratic Reform

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, last week 19 international scholars published a letter calling the fair elections act a threat to Canada's reputation as “...one of the world's guardians of democracy and human rights”. This was just one week after 159 experts here in Canada published a letter condemning the minister as a threat against democracy.

Today, a national newspaper ran an editorial with the headline simply, “Kill this bill”.

Will the Conservatives stop treating Bill C-23 as a piece of partisan legislation that is only to be rammed through Parliament?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, the fair elections act would keep everyday Canadians in charge of democracy by keeping interest groups on the sidelines and rule breakers out of business. It would close loopholes to big money, like the loans loophole the Liberals used to accept hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal donations. It would crack down on illegal calls from political impostors who deceive Canadians. It would make it more difficult to engage in voter fraud. And, it would make it easier for law-abiding people to vote, because they would have more information about the availability of voting and an extra day on which to vote.

Justice

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that Quebec has now been under-represented for more than seven months on the highest court of the land, at a time when some very delicate issues are being studied, including Senate reform. The Prime Minister alone bears full responsibility for the failed appointment of Justice Nadon, despite what the Prime Minister's Office would like us to believe, because, if there was any doubt, common sense would dictate that he abstain.

Will the Conservatives promise to restart the appointment process as quickly as possible and not to nominate Justice Nadon? Quebec and its legal community could quickly provide the minister with the names of some excellent candidates.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my dear colleague for wanting to identify a pool of qualified candidates for this appointment. I consulted the attorney general of Quebec, Quebec's chief justice, the chief justice of the Quebec Superior Court, the chief justice of the Federal Court of Appeal, the chief justice of the Federal Court, and representatives of major legal associations, including the Barreau du Québec and the Canadian Bar Association.

The all-party selection committee provided us with a list of three names taken from a long list of candidates.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, hearing what people recommend is one thing, listening is another. Did the government listen and really take their recommendations into account? I would remind members that the Quebec justice minister clearly said that Justice Nadon was not one of the justices he recommended.

Canadians can clearly see that the Conservatives have no one to blame but themselves for this mess. The Conservatives happily ignored offensive comments by Vic Toews about how his critics stand with the child pornographers, and appointed him to a plum patronage position on the Manitoba bench just months after he left politics.

Why can the Conservatives not understand the importance of making the best judicial appointments—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. The hon. minister of justice.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, there is a judicial advisory committee that provides the names, of which Mr. Justice Toews was put forward. As a member of the committee that vetted the names that came from Quebec, she would know that. She was a member of that committee and, in fact, I appreciated her participation.

Speaking of Mr. Nadon, someone said, “He’s a great judge. He’s a brilliant legal mind”. Who said that? The member for Gatineau.

Ethics

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in February, Conservative Senator Don Meredith went on a five-day trip to Washington for the National Prayer Breakfast. He used parliamentary travel points, bought business class plane tickets, and claimed $1,294 in expenses. Senator Meredith charged all of this to taxpayers, despite—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I have not heard anything at this point that has to do with government business. He is a member of the other place. It sounds like it may be a great question over there, but we are in the House.

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as long as the Prime Minister continues to appoint people who abuse and deceive honest Canadians, the NDP will continue to ask questions.

Senator Meredith was removed from the human rights committee because of his very liberal use of a Senate credit card and because he was often late. He tried to get reimbursed for—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The same holds true in French and in English.

The hon. member for Etobicoke Centre.