Debates of June 6th, 2014

Employment

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

Mr. Speaker, we know that the job numbers can be volatile from month to month, but let me say this. The IMF and the OECD have confidence in Canada's economy. These international bodies believe that Canada has one of the strongest growth records as far as jobs are concerned and also as far as our economies are concerned in years going ahead.

It is quite rich for the Liberal Party to be criticizing our government's job creation legislation and efforts. The Liberals voted against every job creation measure that this government has brought forward. Whether it is freezing the EI rates or tax cuts for the manufacturing sector, every time the Liberals will vote against it.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, those talking points are out of date and the Conservatives are out of touch with the reality that you cannot support a full-time family with part-time work. Since last year, Canada has lost 27,000 full-time jobs. Wages are stagnant and families are falling behind.

We can change this. Smart investments in infrastructure can create good full-time jobs across Canada, but the Conservatives have actually cut planned infrastructure spending by 90%. Will the Conservatives reverse these cuts, invest in infrastructure, and help create good full-time jobs across Canada?

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities]

Mr. Speaker, across this land Canadians are seeing construction projects unfold in their communities this spring with jobs being created as a result. Across this land municipalities are identifying infrastructure project priorities and submitting them to the new building Canada plan. Across this land the Liberals continue to spread misinformation.

Public Safety

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this government is knowingly violating people's privacy. We learned this week that the Government Operations Centre, which falls under the Department of Public Safety, keeps a registry of protests and spies on the people who participate in them.

Freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly are fundamental rights protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. How do the Conservatives justify transforming the Government Operations Centre into a super spy agency?

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I actually answered this question I think four times yesterday, but I will provide a little more information to the NDP. I do not think they get it. Protests and rallies are public events. Protests that create blockades on highways, railroads, international ports of entry, and bridges have a significant impact on Canadian interests and pose potential security threats.

Every Canadian watching today must recognize and appreciate that it is our government that is making sure that those things are looked after.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, they should be a little more specific. In fact, according to the email obtained by the media, the Government Operations Centre keeps a list of all the protests that take place across the country, and it shares the information with its partners. Police forces, Canadian intelligence services and the department involved come to mind immediately.

Can the minister tell us if any personally identifiable information about the participants is collected and if this information is also shared with foreign intelligence services?

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I guess I am answering the question for the sixth time. The Government Operations Centre needs to be prepared to respond to any potential event to ensure confidence in government and continuity of federal services. Canadians expect nothing less.

As I mentioned yesterday as well, peaceful protests can suddenly turn violent, just as law-abiding citizens can suddenly create a crime.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the only way the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety could pretend to justify Conservatives spying on Canadians was to bizarrely imply that if a peaceful protest turned unpeaceful, the NDP would call on the government to take action.

Let us be clear about what we are talking about. This is about the ministry of public safety maintaining a registry of demonstrations to spy on Canadians who protest. How can the minister justify turning the ministry of public safety into a spy agency that keeps tabs on peaceful protesters?

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, we of course respect the right of all Canadians to peaceful protest. However, Canadians also expect that local law enforcement will ensure that the laws are respected. In order to do that, the Government Operations Centre monitors any event that may pose a risk to public safety.

Privacy

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are only now starting to see the full extent of government demands for our personal information. Rogers Communications, one of Canada's largest Internet providers, said that just last year they received over 170,000 requests for customer information. This follows previous statistics showing that telecom companies received more than 1.2 million data requests in 2011. We all know that there are not 1.2 million terrorists. What possible reason could the government have for collecting so much of our personal information?

[Ed Holder, Conservative, Minister of State (Science and Technology)]

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. Our government takes the privacy of law-abiding Canadians very seriously, and we expect all telecommunications companies to comply with the law and play by the rules when handling Canadians' information.

Let me be clear. An individual's private information is protected under the charter and cannot be released without a warrant.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, no wonder the government hand-picked the new Privacy Commissioner, who specialized in defending the government against the previous Privacy Commissioner.

Privacy experts all recognize that the Conservatives' arguments on this file are bizarre and unbelievable. Warrantless searches go far beyond general scrutiny, and while some companies are releasing the number of requests they are getting, Canadians still have no idea how far this collection of their private data is going.

Will the government finally explain what it is really doing with the private information of more than one million Canadians?

[Ed Holder, Conservative, Minister of State (Science and Technology)]

Mr. Speaker, I can say it twice to make sure it is very, very clear, because I think it is important that the member understand. I was very familiar with PIPEDA, when it first came into play, as an employer. Let me be clear that the rules governing these types of voluntary disclosures have been clearly defined in section 7 of the PIPEDA rules.

Telecommunications companies have already said as well that they will release only 411-style information. More importantly, we expect that telecommunications companies will comply absolutely with the law and play by the rules when handling Canadians' private information.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Conservatives, who are supposed to be the champions of freedom, justify asking telecoms for personal information about 100,000 Canadians?

If the Conservatives want to scrutinize Canadians' information and actions, they just have to watch the French program Occupation double. In the meantime, we are talking about ordinary citizens who are sharing their personal information with the government without even knowing it.

Can the Conservative government tell us what kind of information the telecoms are asked for?

[Ed Holder, Conservative, Minister of State (Science and Technology)]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the chance to say something very important that gives confidence to Canadians. I am talking about the privacy of law-abiding Canadians to be well respected, something this government takes absolutely seriously.

As I said, and I will say it again, a person's private information is protected under the charter and cannot be released without a warrant.

Public Works and Government Services

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in 2012 the government was forced to cancel the F-35 program because it was poorly managed and lacked transparency. Reports by the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Auditor General were devastating and categorical. In addition, Parliament was not even informed of the details of the project.

Will the Conservatives change their approach, show some transparency and tell us, for example, if the operational requirement has been modified so that every fighter jet manufacturer can be considered?

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, a panel of independent experts ensured that the evaluation of options was rigorous and impartial and that the results to be made public are comprehensive and understandable. As we have said repeatedly, in due course we will be sharing unclassified and non-confidential business information from the evaluation of options.

We will not take lectures from the NDP, or the Liberals for that matter, on military procurement. When it comes to providing equipment for the military, we have delivered.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives want Parliament to sign over a $9 billion cheque immediately, no questions asked. That is ridiculous.

The Auditor General said that the total cost of the project is $25 billion. It seems to me that with a bill like that, a competitive process is clearly necessary.

What killed the F-35 program in 2012 was the government's lack of transparency and inability to justify the need for this purchase. It seemed like the government was far more interested in defending Lockheed Martin's interests than those of Canadians.

Will the minister disclose the details of the Canadian F-35 procurement program by the time the House adjourns?

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat, for the benefit of the opposition, that we are currently conducting an evaluation following the seven-point plan. Many of those reports are actually available on the website. The reports are being scrubbed for commercially sensitive information as well as for making sure that there is no classified information that goes out.

Once the evaluation of those options is complete, we will be announcing a decision to the Canadian public in due course.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said, it looks like the same comedy of errors is playing itself out again on this F-35 file.

The Minister of National Defence at the time used to claim, “Yes, we have seen the competition. We did a competition for the F-35s”. It turned out that no, actually, the Conservatives did not. The Americans did it for them in 2001, and they just accepted it.

Can the Conservatives tell us if they actually conducted a real competition this time, and that it has taken place, and whether, yet again, Canadians, having no guaranteed contract for Canadian companies, really believe it is a great deal for the Canadian public across this country?

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, let me repeat once again, no decision has been made on the CF-18 replacement.

In the evaluation of the different options, we are looking at defence capabilities. Of course we are looking at industrial benefits, and we are looking at the best value for Canadian taxpayers. Once that evaluation is complete, we will be making sure that the information is revealed to Canadians in due course.

Infrastructure

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the C.D. Howe Institute estimates that traffic gridlock costs Toronto's economy up to $11 billion each and every year. Commute times in ridings like Trinity--Spadina and Scarborough--Agincourt are getting longer and longer, reducing the valuable time workers can spend with their families. Meanwhile, the Conservatives refuse to commit to a national transit strategy and have virtually turned off the tap to the building Canada fund until, of course, the election cycle starts again.

Why is the government continuing to turn its back on our important cities?

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, our Conservative government is making record investments in infrastructure, the longest and the largest infrastructure plan in Canada's history, of over $53 billion over the next 10 years. Already our government has invested over $7 billion specifically in public transit.

With respect to a national transit plan, we very much believe in empowering the municipalities to identify their own transit priorities. We do not believe in a one-size-fits-all approach.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the money will arrive in 2019.

Over the past 12 months, the government has not created a single net full-time job, and the so-called jobs minister seems proud that middle-class salaries are barely keeping pace with inflation.

Infrastructure investments not only create large amounts of economic activity but actually improve productivity, raise standards of living, and increase quality of life. Instead of making excuses and heckling in the House for their own economic failures, why do the Conservatives not actually do something for a change to help working families?

For starters, why do they not reverse the 90% cut to the infrastructure fund?

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities]

Mr. Speaker, again, that is simply incorrect. We are making record investments in infrastructure.

In addition to those record investments, over the next decade we will spend within our means. Within the year, we will balance the budget.

Our new building Canada plan is open for business. Applications are already being received. One transit project in Edmonton has already been approved. I will take that to the bank any day.