Debates of April 3rd, 2014

Democratic Reform

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, that is delusional.

Let us look at this minister's real record. He tried to use the Neufeld report, but Mr. Neufeld himself came here to say that the Conservatives were completely distorting his report.

The Chief Electoral Officer has said that this reform is going to silence Elections Canada; investigators are saying that this reform is going to prevent them from investigating; and today, we learned that the former auditor general, Sheila Fraser, is adding her voice to the group of experts stating clearly that this bill is anti-democratic.

Will he finally admit that the one and only goal of the bill is to help the Conservative Party?

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

On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, the fair elections act will help to establish new rules. For example, there will be a registry for all robocalls. The authorities will be able to monitor those calls to make sure that Canadians no longer receive calls containing misleading information. It will also protect Canadians from big money and the undue influence of money, as well as requiring voters to bring a piece of identification when they vote.

National Defence

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have written to families of Canadian Forces members killed in Afghanistan asking them to pay their own travel costs to attend a national memorial in Ottawa on May 9. Now the minister is trying to shift the blame, claiming that he is not responsible for the note sent out by his own office.

Enough with the excuses. These families have already paid a greater price than most of us can even imagine. Will the Minister of National Defence take responsibility for this latest insult and guarantee that the expenses of the families of fallen soldiers will be taken care of completely by the government?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, Colonel Blais' letter was premature, incorrect, and containing false information, as event plans have still not been finalized. The government's position is that expenses will be covered.

Our government is proud to commemorate our military mission in Afghanistan on May 9 with a national day of honour. I encourage all Canadians to participate. This day will give Canadians an opportunity to reflect on the courage and sacrifices made by our brave men and women.

The Economy

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since the government seems unusually interested in statistical definitions this week, let us talk about a simple concept, the median household income. The most recent StatsCan data shows that the annual median household income has only increased by a paltry $100 since the Conservatives came to power. As for the bottom 20%, their income has fallen by $500 a year.

Do the Conservatives have a plan to help these clearly middle class Canadian families?

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

Mr. Speaker, StatsCan has confirmed that families are better off today under the Conservative government than under previous Liberal governments, without question.

The very same statistics indicate that median net worth of Canadian families has increased by 44% since 2005. Again, after-tax disposable income has risen by over 10% across all levels of income since 2006.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government to consider a few more simple, yet worrying, statistics. The percentage of working age Canadians who today hold jobs is lower than when the government took office. Youth unemployment is at 14%, more than 2% higher than when the Conservatives came to power. Meanwhile, the number of adults working for the minimum wage has risen by 50%. What is the government's plan, apart from denial, to create better opportunities for these Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, even though the global economy remains fragile—it is a fragile recovery, especially in the United States and Europe—our economic policies have helped protect Canadians. Over a million net new jobs have been created since July 2005, with over 85% of those being full time and over 80% in the private sector. That is the best job creation record in the G7 by far. Under the action taken by the Conservative government, Canada will continue to have one of the lowest youth unemployment rates in the G7.

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Liberal Party has been asking the Conservatives to help the middle class for a long time. Yesterday, we learned why they have done nothing. The Prime Minister himself, in a reply he gave yesterday, showed that he had understood nothing and that he did not know the definition of middle class.

Statistics Canada has shown that, since the Conservatives came to power, the average household income has increased by only $100 per year.

When will the Conservatives begin to show some concern for the middle class?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader has no idea what it is like to be in the middle class.

He has voted against our tax cuts. He has voted against the budgets that were there to create jobs and protect jobs. He has voted against middle class families on every vote on budgets.

The Liberal leader has threatened dangerous new deficit spending that would take Canada down the same roads as Detroit and Greece.

I am not surprised that someone who believes that “the budget will balance itself” would also believe that we can spend our way to prosperity.

Democratic Reform

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

Mr. Speaker, Sheila Fraser, Canada's former auditor general, who exposed the Liberals' schemes in the sponsorship scandal, says that Bill C-23 is an attack on Canada's democracy.

Ms. Fraser, who currently co-chairs an advisory board on the electoral system, laments the fact that Bill C-23 would disenfranchise thousands of voters, undercut the independence of the Commissioner of Canada Elections, and impede investigations into wrongdoing.

Will the government listen to Sheila Fraser, withdraw its bill and go back to the drawing board?

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

Mr. Speaker, we do not agree with Elections Canada on this.

We believe that the commissioner should be independent from the Chief Electoral Officer. This is a good decision that will allow the commissioner to make his own decisions and avoid being dismissed without justification. He will also be able to conduct his own investigations, which is not possible under the current legislation. This is a major improvement that we continue to support.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the so-called minister of so-called democratic reform claimed that the experts who are against his electoral reform are so-called experts.

The only problem is that the current and former Chief Electoral Officers, the current and former Commissioners of Canada Elections, and provincial elections officials are against this reform. Today, it was Sheila Fraser who talked about Bill C-23 as an attack on our democracy.

Is Sheila Fraser going to be treated like all the other officers of Parliament and experts who have criticized this reform?

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have rejected the NDP's arguments.

The NDP says that Canadians should be able to vote without any ID. Canadians think that is ridiculous, and they support us when we say that Canadians can bring identification to vote. It is a reasonable position that is consistent with practices in other aspects of society. We will continue to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the Minister of State for Democratic Reform ignore Sheila Fraser's serious warning, and I just cannot get over it, especially coming from the man who used the name of the former auditor general 65 times in the House to bash the Liberals, and rightly so.

If I understand the minister's logic correctly, when Sheila Fraser uncovers the Liberals' schemes, she is quite credible, but when she criticizes the Conservatives' electoral reform, then all of a sudden she is no longer reliable.

Could there be better proof of the bad faith and crass partisanship of this government and this minister?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, we are aware of Elections Canada's views on these issues. We just happen to disagree with the agency. In a democracy, we have a right to do that.

We are a democratically elected government, and we will take all of these arguments to the Canadian people, who believe that our common sense reforms are in fact merited.

The Canadian people support us when we bring in a registry to track robocalls to ensure that they are accurate and honest. They believe there should be penalties for rogue callers. They believe it is reasonable to expect that somebody bring one of 39 different pieces of identity when they go to vote.

These are reasonable, common sense changes, and we will continue to support them.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Assembly of First Nations has added its voice to the chorus of Canadians speaking out against the Conservatives' unfair elections act.

Today's testimony revealed that urban aboriginals and those living in rural communities will all be negatively impacted by this bill. These are communities where voter participation is already very low.

Why is the minister ignoring first nations' testimony and stubbornly moving forward with changes that will disenfranchise so many Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, all Canadians, I think, would agree that it is reasonable that, when one crosses the border, one should be asked to bring ID; that when one gets on an airplane, one should be asked to bring ID.

I heard somebody claim that it is not a constitutional right, but in fact, mobility rights are in the Constitution. Crossing the border is a basic right, but when one exercises that right, one has to provide identification so that our Canadian authorities know who one is.

The very same is true for voting. It is a reasonable position and Canadians support it.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is just not convincing.

The reality is that people started talking about changing election laws after widespread voter suppression calls during the last election. The calls were traced back to the Conservative central database. Yet the minister's changes not only do not improve oversight of live calling; they effectively deregulate it.

This clearly is not about saving single moms from red tape. Why are they changing the law to make it harder for election authorities to track the Conservatives' live calling?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would invite the member to point to the section in the bill that deregulates automated calls, or live calls for that matter.

Live calls are not regulated currently. We are bringing in a registry for every single live call campaign that is purchased by a political party or candidate from a call centre.

Now, if NDP members believe that volunteers like grandmothers or stay-at-home moms who are volunteering at a campaign office should be forced to register with a national regulator, I am sorry; I just disagree with them on that.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the minister go back to the charter, because that is not exactly what they were talking about with mobility rights.

Conservatives have such a casual relationship with facts that it is no wonder that virtually every expert in the entire country is lined up against this fatally flawed bill.

If one has a visual impairment, the voting rules are challenging enough under the current rules, but the minister's unfair changes would make that process even more difficult.

Considering the fact that the bill would make it harder for people with a visual impairment to vote, does the minister still stand by his statement that everything in this bill is terrific?

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

Mr. Speaker, in fact, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind card is an eligible form of ID.

The CEO of Elections Canada has the ability to designate different forms of ID. He has so far chosen 39 different options, and among them is this card. Now he has allowed it to be used to identify who people are, but I believe that, where the card has the address of CNIB members, they should be able to use it to identify their residence as well.

I saw one such card of a member of that association this week, and it did have an address on it; so I would encourage the CEO to allow that as a proof of address as well.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, last Monday, the minister went to discuss the electoral “deform” bill with his friends in the Senate and said that he would be willing to amend his bill, as needed.

However, yesterday, here in the House, he said that amending the electoral deform bill was out of the question.

Can the minister tell us when he was telling the truth, before the Senate or in the House?

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

Mr. Speaker, I said exactly the same thing in both places.

The reality is that there are no amendments to consider, because the committee will not examine any amendments until April 25. Once we see the amendments, we will consider them.

However, Canadians support the common sense reforms in the fair elections act, and we will continue to move forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, first the Minister of State for Democratic Reform misinterpreted the Neufeld report. Then he ignored all the advice that was offered. Then yesterday he criticized my colleague for quoting the “so-called” experts.

I have a simple question for the minister. If Harry Neufeld, William Corbett, Richard Hasen and Sheila Fraser are “so-called” experts, how can he himself claim to have sufficient knowledge of the subject?