Debates of May 23rd, 2013

Ethics

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I detect a measure of desperation coming from the other side.

I have a simple question. Now that the RCMP has approached the Senate to access documents and information, can the minister tell us whether the RCMP has approached the Prime Minister or anyone in his office for access to documents and information?

[James Moore, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, it has not. Unlike under the Liberals in the Suharto affair, we do not tell the RCMP what to do. The RCMP operates independently.

Getting back to this central question, the Liberals are pretty stridently self-righteous on this issue. However, the Ethics Commissioner is looking into it, the Office of the Senate Ethics Officer is looking into it and the Senate committee is going to do a new report on it, so on this issue the facts will be found.

Before the Liberals throw stones, they have a glass house crashing around them, because there are three Liberal members of Parliament who were caught taking $175,000 in false housing claims. They are currently in this House. When are they going to pay back that money?

Government Appointments

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that the prerequisite for—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. The hon. member for Hochelaga.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that the prerequisite for being a member of the new Social Security Tribunal is having close ties to the Conservative Party.

History is repeating itself. The Conservatives used to appoint their cronies to the Board of Referees. In return, they illegally filled the party coffers. Now, the same wheeling and dealing is happening with the Social Security Tribunal.

The tribunal will make decisions that affect employment insurance, old age security and pensions.

Will the minister commit to enforcing the rules and ensuring that the Social Security Tribunal is independent?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as everyone in the House understands, the employment insurance tribunals no longer exist. They have been replaced by our government with the new Social Security Tribunal. This is an important tribunal because the people who sit on it are making decisions that affect the lives of people in a very direct and personal way. Their decisions will affect people's livelihoods, for some of them at their most vulnerable time.

They are also responsible for ensuring the integrity of our social security system. That is why they are selected on the basis of merit and why they have to meet the specific experience and competency criteria required to do the job.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, just days after the government's EI board appointees were caught giving improper donations to the Conservative Party, which have not been paid back, it is clear that the minister is on yet another partisan appointment binge. The new Social Security Tribunal is being stacked with failed federal and provincial Conservative candidates, members of Tory riding associations and even a former provincial Tory cabinet minister.

What will it take for the government to get the message that “who you know in the PMO” is not merit?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, there is a rigorous process in place to review appointments to make sure that they are made on the basis of merit, because this is a very important tribunal. It is a tribunal that will make decisions affecting people's lives at a very vulnerable time. They also have to have the judgment and experience necessary to defend the integrity of the social security system that so many Canadians want to depend on when they are in need and to make sure that it is not abused in a fashion that will hurt those who are genuinely in need.

That is why it is important that we have good people on this tribunal. That is why there is an important process in place that ensures that appointments are on merit.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it feels like so long ago since the Prime Minister announced his Public Appointments Commission to scrutinize his government's appointments. Then, $2.5 million later, he scrapped it.

Now, in this Parliament, only two of 43 appointments referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates have appeared.

I have a simple question. Can the government confirm if it advised these appointees that they are obliged to appear when invited by a parliamentary committee?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated in the past, appointments made by our government are based on sound merit. They are people who are committed to serving the public in a fashion that many of us appreciate.

For many people it is a significant sacrifice, but they do it out of a spirit of public service and a spirit of commitment to make their country a better place, much as many people in this House come here to do for the exact same reasons. That is why it is important that we ensure, as our government does, that the people we appoint to deal with these important responsibilities are indeed people of merit and substance.

Ethics

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, long gone are the good old days of 2005, when a certain person said, and I quote, “When does a government finally decide to be accountable? After five years? Ten years?”

The person who said that was the current Prime Minister. At the time, the Conservatives were campaigning on their high horse of transparency. Unfortunately, that horse has been put out to pasture. After the Senate spending scandal, after the Conservatives stacked the Social Security Tribunal with their cronies, after the misplaced $3.1 billion, it is clear that times have changed.

Why have the Conservatives become what they once spoke out against?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand in the House today and talk about the great plans we have with respect to open government.

We are one of the world leaders on the world stage, through the Open Government Partnership. There are 273,000 data sets online right now at open.gc.ca available for researchers, citizens and entrepreneurs. That is the kind of leadership we are pursuing in many different facets of open government, and we are proud of it.

Canada Revenue Agency

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to cracking down on crime and rooting out corruption in our tax system. Can the Minister of National Revenue please update the House on the government's action to clean up the Montreal tax service office?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, I do consider any misconduct by CRA officials disturbing. CRA investigated these matters some time ago and referred the findings to the RCMP. These individuals have not worked for CRA for several years.

Over the last few years, we have worked with the RCMP to clean up the situation at the Montreal tax services offices. We are committed to protecting the integrity of our tax system and cracking down on crime, and we are pleased with this most recent progress by the RCMP.

Government Expenditures

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

Mr. Speaker, while the Conservatives are busy forcing the budget implementation bill through Parliament at top speed, I wonder if they have had any time to look for the missing $3.1 billion.

It has been 23 days since the Auditor General revealed that the Conservatives lost track of billions of dollars in funding set aside for public safety.

Can the minister tell us whether they have found the money and if he has any documentation to prove it?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and the other members of her caucus, in the same amount of time, could have merely looked up this public material that was passed by previous Parliaments in the public accounts of 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2009. It is all there.

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

Mr. Speaker, with $3 billion unaccounted for and even the Auditor General unable to find it, is that the answer?

Meanwhile, for the third time the Conservatives are forcing a budget bill through Parliament in their sham process. Some committees only have one or two meetings on very complex issues in Bill C-60 that deserve more attention. We had a witness just this morning at the finance committee who asked why he was there and not before HRSDC. Welcome to Conservative Ottawa.

Why do the Conservatives insist on evading parliamentary scrutiny and what do they have against fiscal accountability?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Minister of State (Finance)]

Mr. Speaker, fiscal accountability is what this government is all about. We have put forward a budget implementation bill that we are looking forward to the opposition members actually reading, understanding and supporting. It would provide measures for Canadians that would follow on our long-term plan of creating more jobs and helping businesses by reducing their costs so that they can create the jobs. That is what is important to Canadians, and I would encourage the hon. members to get on with their work at committee and get the budget passed.

Taxation

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a party that ran on accountability cannot account for $3.1 billion. Wow.

As well, a party that denounced an iPod tax has now introduced its own through the back door. In a bizarre twist, we learned just today that the Conservatives have long planned on making this tax retroactive, demanding that retailers pay back-taxes on all the iPods they have sold in the past, and even on some TVs. Obviously, retailers are simply stunned.

Why did the Conservatives not even give industry a warning that these changes were coming?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Minister of State (Finance)]

Mr. Speaker, there is no fact in that question. It is all false.

The only people in the House of Commons who actually want to put a tax on iPods are the New Democrats. They are the only ones who want to increase taxes.

IPods have been coming into this country tax free, and our government will ensure that that continues.

Government Advertising

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

How hypocritical, Mr. Speaker. They have the nerve to accuse the opposition of wanting to put a tax on iPods, but three years later they are caught with their pants down, introducing that same tax.

Since they keep saying one thing and doing another, they have to spend money on pitching their twisted logic to the public. That is why they spent $190,000 a minute on ads for a job program that does not even exist.

Is the President of the Treasury Board using his new iPod tax to pay for these ads?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to answer the question. That allows me to talk about a fantastic measure in our new economic action plan 2013. That is the Canada job grant. Indeed, because we think it is such a great program, we believe it is important to communicate it to all Canadians so that they can see themselves, or see their own potential, in those commercials.

I think it is very important that in those ads we see young women wearing hard hats. Women are an under-represented group in the trades. We are promoting their presence and will continue to.

Ethics

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, most ordinary Canadians do not have personal lawyers on retainer to help make legal troubles go away. However, the Prime Minister did. The Prime Minister's personal legal counsel at the time the Wright-Duffy deal was cooked up was Ben Perrin. Mr. Perrin issued a carefully worded statement this week saying he did not participate in Wright's decision to cut a personal cheque to reimburse Senator Duffy's expense.

Never mind the cheque; could the government confirm that Mr. Perrin was in fact involved in negotiating the Duffy-Wright deal?

[James Moore, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we are not aware of any legal documents associated to a Duffy-Wright deal and Mr. Perrin can speak for himself, as he has through his own statement.