Debates of Oct. 5th, 2009

Cinar

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a team working for the television program Enquête showed that the RCMP was all set to lay criminal charges in the CINAR case, but decided not to following what appears to have been political intervention. According to a former RCMP investigator, Justice Canada sent a memo stating that the CINAR case was not a public matter and that it did not have enough evidence to lay charges.

Can the Prime Minister explain why the RCMP decided not to go ahead with criminal charges when it was prepared to proceed? Did it have something to do with political pressure?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, we are taking this matter seriously. Clearly, intellectual property rights in this country must be respected. One thing is for sure: we are encouraging the Bloc to support our getting tough on crime agenda.

There is a lot to do and many issues to address when it comes to justice reforms. The problem is that the Bloc Québécois does not seem to want to help us help victims.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the CINAR case has been in Justice Canada's hands since they came to power, and they have not done any more than the Liberals did.

This case involves shell companies, tampering with contracts and other violations, all right under Telefilm Canada's nose.

Does the Prime Minister agree that it is about time for a public inquiry to reveal the details of Justice Canada's involvement in this case and to explain why the RCMP never laid charges under either the Liberals or the Conservatives?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, once again, it is important to emphasize that intellectual property rights must be respected in this country. The government is addressing the issue. One thing is for sure: justice will be done, and Justice Canada will see what it can do in this case.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, still on the subject of CINAR, in 2000, Revenue Canada, with Martin Cauchon at the helm, refused to cooperate with the RCMP. This lack of cooperation put an end to the investigation.

Now that new allegations are surfacing about CINAR, can the Minister of National Revenue tell us if he plans on cooperating with an RCMP investigation?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot welcome back the Bloc to the whole question of justice in this country since those members have never expressed any interest in this whatsoever. As a matter of fact, when bills have been before the House to crack down on white collar crime, or crack down on individuals involved with trafficking in children, we have never had support from the Bloc.

We will look into this. Why do those members not look into supporting our tough on crime legislation? Why will they not do that for a change?

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, the government is unable to answer the question I asked because it has something to hide.

With Martin Cauchon at the helm, Revenue Canada, which is responsible for the voluntary disclosures program, settled its dispute with CINAR behind closed doors. At the time, this settlement was a scandal, because CINAR was already suspected of having committed fraud.

Now that the fraud has been confirmed, does the government plan on calling for the repayment of all the money it is owed?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the House what we do know, that when it comes to standing up for victims and law-abiding Canadians, we can never count on the Bloc.

Within the last couple of weeks, Bloc members would not support a bill that would crack down on people who traffic in children. At the same time they made sure that people who commit fraud in this country get to go home under house arrest afterwards.

I want to put a question to them. Which is the more dumb move on their part? They have lots of them to choose from.

Tax Harmonization

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, small business owners across the country are worried about the impact of this new so-called harmonized sales tax that the government wants to impose on Ontarians and British Columbians.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has come out opposed to the HST and no wonder, when only 6% of its members, the small businesses across Canada, think that there would be any improvement in their competitiveness. Most of them realize that it is going to take money out of consumers' pockets and make it less likely that they can buy the goods and services that small businesses provide, so it is bad for the companies.

Why, if consumers and businesses are against it, is the government going to tax?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the decisions to enter into a provincial harmonized tax with the federal GST are taken at the provincial level, as it happened in Atlantic Canada and other provinces.

For the leader of the NDP to take on the role of a tax fighter is something that is quite unprecedented. Where has he been?

When we wanted to cut the GST, was he for it or against it? Against it. When we wanted to cut income tax for all Canadians, was he for it or against it? Against it. When we wanted to lower the business taxes that he speaks of, where was he? Against it.

Shame on him.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Ontarians and British Columbians are furious about this new federal tax that is going to be coming in. It is fun to hear the members laugh because I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, the taxpayers are not laughing in their ridings.

Coffee, haircuts, shoes, and funerals; try to explain a new tax on funerals to your constituents, Mr. Speaker, and you will find that it is not funny. Even Conservatives are seeing this.

Let me quote a Conservative to the hon. members opposite. Bruce Fitzpatrick, president of the Peterborough Federal Conservative Riding Association, a Conservative riding, called the HST an unaffordable tax grab at the worst possible time.

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the NDP complaining about high taxes would be like Colonel Sanders complaining about the rights of chickens.

Where was he when we tried to cut the GST? He was leading the charge to keep the GST at its historic high level.

This side of the House would have none of that. That is why we cut taxes and that is why Canada is in the economic position that is enviable in the rest of the industrialized world.

No one in Canada speaks up for lower taxes more than this government and this Prime Minister.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats opposed the imposition of the GST and a New Democrat government in Saskatchewan cancelled the HST that was brought in by Conservatives in that province.

The combined debt of Canadian households is $1.4 trillion. That is a record.

Things are going from bad to worse for families.

Statistics show that for every dollar of disposable income, households have $1.45 of debt.

Adding a harmonized sales tax to all of that would be a huge mistake.

Why does the government want to add the HST—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The hon. Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, he cites the example of Saskatchewan. To hard hit taxpayers in Saskatchewan, the previous NDP government was not satisfied with a 5% sales tax. It increased it to 9%.

Then the federal NDP comes into this place and votes against every single tax cut that this government has brought in. Whether it is for seniors, whether it is for students, or whether it is for folks with modest incomes who are struggling through some hard times, the NDP could always be counted on to want to keep taxes high.

Thank goodness for the leadership of our finance minister. Thank goodness for the Prime Minister's leadership. We are keeping taxes low. We are working to create an economy that will create jobs and open opportunities.

Afghanistan

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Military Police Complaints Commission is conducting an investigation into allegations that the Canadian military police knowingly sent Afghan prisoners to be tortured.

Why did the government order all its employees to refuse to testify under oath before the commission? Why is this Conservative government trying to muzzle our diplomat Richard Colvin?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the hon. member would understand that this is an arm's-length commission taking place under the Military Police Complaints Commission's rules that apply under the Federal Court. There is case law and precedent that applies to these matters.

Surely the hon. member is not suggesting that the government would involve itself in the proceedings that are currently before the court. Surely she is not suggesting that.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this government is trying to crush the life out of the Military Police Complaints Commission by indicating that it will not renew Peter Tinsley's mandate as chair. The government knows full well that having an independent commission guarantees the credibility of our military men and women.

Why does the government want to stop this investigation into allegations of bungled investigations by the military police? Why is it compromising the credibility of our armed forces?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, as usual, these allegations are totally false.

Mr. Tinsley has in fact been the commissioner for four years. This is now the end of his tenure. As has been the case with all previous commissioners, there is a four-year term.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

There has only been one previous commissioner.

[Peter McKay]

Mr. Speaker, if the member will allow me to answer her question, this is the normal process that has always been in place. Mr. Tinsley has others serving on the commission with him who will continue to hear evidence. We have absolutely no intention whatsoever of ending these proceedings.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The minister will be aware of the reports yesterday that Ambassador Peter Galbraith, who was the UN's deputy Secretary-General's representative in Kabul, indicated that to his knowledge there were at least 1,500 polling centres in Afghanistan that were closed. They were ghost centres that were not open. These centres produced several hundred thousand votes for President Karzai.

What is the position of the Government of Canada with respect to the conduct of that vote?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the depth of fraud in the election is something that is being looked at by the ECC. We will wait for a determination by that body. It is an Afghan-led organization. When that report comes out, we will then be able to comment on the election and the eventual winner of that election.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that Ambassador Galbraith is no longer there. He lost his job because of his position on fraud. I hope that Canada will take a clear position on the election and that democracy and the integrity of the vote in Afghanistan will be paramount to the Government of Canada.

What is the government's position? That is my question.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the position of the Government of Canada is well known. The extent of the fraud is something, as I mentioned earlier, that has to be determined by the agency in charge, in other words the Electoral Complaints Commission. The commission is in the process of doing its work and once it has finished, we will be able to comment on the result of the election.