Debates of March 31st, 2014

Finance

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Skeena--Bulkley Valley.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, after terrible numbers in the GDP in December, I guess cherry-picking is what we get from the finance minister for the Conservative Party.

The budget should be a place for practical measures to increase job creation, but not with the Conservatives. With them it is a kitchen sink of nasty Conservative schemes they want to keep hidden from Canadians.

The government decided to sell out Canadians and their private banking information to the IRS. The CRA will hand over personal financial information on over a million dual citizens to the U.S. government.

Why did the Conservatives bury this deeply unpopular measure in their monster omnibus budget bill?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, reading off the latest economic data is not cherry-picking. When there is good news, it is considered bad news by the opposition.

FATCA has raised a number of concerns in Canada. The agreement addresses these concerns by relying on the existing framework under the Canada-U.S. tax treaty. The CRA will not assist the IRS in collecting U.S. taxes, and no new taxes will be imposed. In our negotiations, we obtained a number of concessions, including exempting certain accounts, like RRSPs, RDSPs, and TFSAs from—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Victoria.

Pensions

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for months the Conservatives have refused to hear any demands from the provinces on expanding the Canada pension plan, saying it would cost us tens of thousands of jobs. The thing is, Finance Canada's own report on the CPP says:

In the long run, expanding the CPP would bring economic benefits. Higher savings will lead to higher incomes in the future and higher consumption possibilities for seniors”

Why did the Conservatives mislead Canadians about the positive impacts of expanding the CPP?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Minister of State (Finance)]

Mr. Speaker, with the global economic recovery still fragile, we need to be very mindful not to impose costs on workers and also on employers that could threaten the economy.

The NDP plan to raise the CPP payroll tax could force a family to pay as much as $2,600 more per year in taxes. While our economy is still fragile, the NDP's irresponsible plan could kill up to 70,000 jobs. Those members should know that it is difficult for someone to have a retirement plan for tomorrow if they do not have a job today.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives keep claiming that expansion of the CPP and the QPP could result in the loss of 70,000 jobs. However, the finance department's fall 2013 report contradicts this utterly partisan Conservative claim.

Not only is the job loss figure wrong, but the report suggests that the positive effects on the economy would for the most part offset the impact of an increase in premiums. Expanding public pension plans is a good thing for the economy. It is the right thing to do for the economy.

Why are the Conservatives ignoring the provinces' needs as well as expert advice?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Minister of State (Finance)]

Mr. Speaker, despite the New Democratic Party, we continue to stand up for lower taxes, job creation, and economic growth for all Canadians.

Let me quote Laura Jones, the executive vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, who said:

An increase in the CPP tax takes more money out of all employees' and employers' pockets. ... Worse still, small businesses report that a mandatory CPP increase would force many to lower wages and even reduce their workforce.

Infrastructure

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives once again tried to pull a fast one with Friday's budget bill.

They put the replacement of the Champlain Bridge in the bill and precluded any kind of consultation on their toll system. It is obvious that the Conservatives are afraid to meet with the people of the south shore.

Why did the minister put in place a system that allows the Conservatives to impose a toll without any consultation?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Minister of Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, on October 5, 2011, when we made the announcement about the new bridge over the St. Lawrence, we announced that a toll would be charged as part of a public-private partnership and that public transit would use the new bridge.

Nothing has changed. This is certainly no surprise for my colleague. The New Democrats had already said that they would be prepared to consider a toll.

Democratic Reform

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the former head of B.C. Elections has been delivering stark warnings about the minister's unfair election act changes and his constant misquoting of Mr. Neufeld's report. Harry Neufeld says the bill either needs to be amended or it needs to be killed altogether.

This is about people's basic right to vote, yet that minister simply will not listen, and he continues, like a broken record, to misquote statistics and mislead Canadians.

How does he expect Canadians to trust this bill when they cannot even trust his facts?

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

Mr. Speaker, we think it is entirely reasonable that when people show up to vote, they present some ID to prove who they are. That is a basic necessity if we are going to prevent people from voting more than once, voting in a riding where they do not live, or voting when they are ineligible to cast a ballot at all.

When posed the question, “Do you think you should present some ID when you arrive to cast your ballot?”, the average Canadian would say, “That sounds reasonable to me.”

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is almost as though the minister thinks that if he keeps misquoting Mr. Neufeld, somebody will start to believe him, but nobody is fooled. When pushed on his—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain still has the floor.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when pushed on his very selective interpretation of the report, the minister eventually admitted he disagreed with Neufeld's recommendations, yet he continues to rely on the very same report he disagrees with.

When will he stop using misleading evidence to justify unfair changes that could disenfranchise seniors, aboriginals, and young Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, we live in a democracy. Canadians are entitled to disagree with the recommendations of one person.

At the same time, I have quoted the facts accurately. As well, the fact is that it is reasonable to ask people to present some ID when they show up to vote. In Canada, we do not require people to use photo ID or even government-issued ID when they show up to vote. They can use anything from a utility bill to a student ID card, and there are a total of 39 options to identify who they are. We think that is pretty reasonable.

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

Mr. Speaker, listening to the Minister of State for Democratic Reform trying to defend the indefensible, one would think that hordes of fraudsters are getting ready to rig the next election.

Basically, the minister is relying on a report by elections expert Harry Neufeld, who believes that the minister has misinterpreted his report and is reading selectively from it and, in fact, that the Conservatives are simply trying to stack the deck in their favour.

Why did the minister resort to inventing support and twisting Harry Neufeld's words to try to sell his electoral reform?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have always said that I did not agree with Mr. Neufeld's recommendations. In a democracy, people are entitled to disagree when it comes to recommendations.

We believe it is reasonable to have to present a piece of ID in order to vote in Canada, so that elections officials can know who we are and where we live. That is a reasonable requirement and what is required under the fair elections act.

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

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect for the minister, when it comes to credibility, he is not in the same class as Mr. Neufeld, Mr. Mayrand and Mr. Kingsley. I would even go so far as to say that he is a featherweight.

Experts and commentators everywhere are against this reform: academics, editorialists, the current and former chief electoral officers, and international experts. That explains why the minister resorted to basing his arguments on little snippets of the Neufeld report, twisting the facts and misrepresenting the report. His reform could disenfranchise 520,000 voters.

Why is the minister so determined to deny the facts?

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

Mr. Speaker, when she talks about 500,000 voters, she is assuming that every person who used a voter information card had no other option. The vast majority of Canadians did not even have the right to use voter information cards as proof of identity during the last election.

We believe it is reasonable to let Canadians choose one of 39 pieces of identification to prove their identity when they go to vote. I think that is reasonable.

Foreign Investment

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the plan to sell Nordion shows the lack of transparency in the Investment Canada Act review process. Canadians who rely on medical isotopes hope that this agreement will be approved only if it is in their best interest.

Will the minister add to this government's incompetence or will he publicly announce the criteria on which he will base his decision?

[James Moore, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to matters involving international investment, there will always be a process that is open to new ideas for our medical system and for the good of Canadians.

The Environment

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is warning of escalating risks to global human security.

Rather than doing its part to fight climate change, the government's track record is clear: take credit for provincial actions, mock all proposals to make polluters pay, cut Environment Canada's climate change and clean air budget massively, heckle from across the aisle, and cheat future Canadians of their right to climate security.

When there is such an urgent need for real action, why do the Conservatives mock the issue, and why is the minister completely missing in action?

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, this question is coming from an individual who received a fossil award when she was environment minister for B.C.

Our government is committed to protecting the environment while keeping the Canadian economy strong. Since 2006, our government has invested significant funds in more efficient technologies, better infrastructure and adaptation, and clean energy. We have also taken action on two of the largest sources of emission in this country, namely the transportation and electricity generation sectors. In fact, in the first 21 years of our coal regulations, we expect a cumulative reduction in greenhouse gas emissions equal to removing 2.6 million vehicles from the road.