House of Commons Hansard #46 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was devolution.
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, there was no such fraud in the last election. For the next election, the fact is that there will be an independent election commissioner who will have full authority to conduct investigations.
The difficulty here is the NDP, as its spokesman conceded, decided to oppose the bill before reading it.
I obviously would encourage those members to use the weeks ahead of us to actually read things.
Thomas Mulcair NDPLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, let us read it.
Could the Prime Minister tell us what is proposed by the following, proposed subsection 376(3):
The commercial value of services provided to a registered party for the purpose of soliciting—by mail, telephone or other electronic means—monetary contributions is not an election expense under subsection (1), as long as the soliciting is directed only towards individuals who have made at least one monetary contribution of $20 or more to the registered party....
Could the Prime Minister tell us what mischief is being remedied by that provision?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, since we eliminated union contributions and eliminated the taxpayer subsidies to political parties, it is now incumbent upon political parties to raise their own money. Internal operations and the normal operations of raising money would obviously not be part of the expenses that one would incur in terms of communicating with the broader public.
Thomas Mulcair NDPLeader of the Opposition
Of course, Mr. Speaker, the reference to $20 is interesting, because if someone makes a contribution of $20, that person does not get a receipt. It does not count anywhere.
What the Conservatives are saying here is that the Conservative Party is going to be able to spend an unlimited amount of money on fundraising and say it does not count in its limit. The Conservatives are front-loading their cheating for the next election.
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, rules regarding fundraising expenses apply to all political parties.
The cheating that we have seen was the NDP using union money that it is not allowed to use under the act, and that will continue to be illegal.
Thomas Mulcair NDPLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, in 2006, the in-and-out scandal was orchestrated from the central committee of the Conservative Party. There were condemnations and convictions. What punishment did he impose? He stuck them in the Senate. In 2008, he was still back there waiting for his trial. In 2011, thousands of illegal robocalls were made from the central computer of the Conservative Party.
Is the Prime Minister still trying to convince Canadians he did not know anything about it?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, once again, of course, that is not true. The court found—
Stephen Harper Conservative Calgary Southwest, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is completely to the contrary. I do notice the tendency of the leader of the NDP, whether it is elections or Osama bin Laden, to fall into conspiracy theory.
The reality is that the Conservative Party of Canada won the last election because we received more votes from Canadians, and because we continue to serve Canadians, we will continue to win elections.
Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC
Mr. Speaker, last budget day a job grant was introduced that was paid for by cutting provincial job training for the most vulnerable. The provinces rejected it, there is still no agreement, and funding for vital job training organizations is in doubt.
When will this economic problem created by last year's budget be solved?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, unlike the party opposite, this party has increased funding for health, post-secondary education, and the major transfers to the provinces, unlike the Liberal Party of Canada.
We have been very clear that the Canada job grant goes beyond training. The purpose is to make sure we actually create jobs. Canada has the best job-creation record in the G7 over the last several years. The Liberal Party may not view that as a national priority, but we do.
Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC
Mr. Speaker, even though the Canada job grant is still not in place a year later, the government wasted millions in taxpayers' money advertising it during the Stanley Cup playoffs last year.
Will the government commit that it will not advertise any budget 2014 initiatives that are not yet available to Canadians, particularly during the Olympics?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, of course I am delighted to see the wide stakeholder support that the Canada job grant has received.
Mr. Speaker, I can certainly assure you that this government will ensure that Canadians remain well informed of the services available to them. If the Liberals have no policies and therefore no policies to advertise, that really is their problem.
Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC
Mr. Speaker, in the last federal budget, the government was awfully proud of its Canada job grant, a program that is still not up and running. Even so, the government spent vast sums of money advertising it during the Stanley Cup playoffs.
Will the Prime Minister commit to not wasting taxpayers' money on useless ads during the Olympic Games?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the Canada job grant is a job creation policy. It is not just about training. It involves putting together money from the private sector and governments to create jobs for unemployed workers.
We have the best track record for job creation in the G7, and we intend to make sure that people always know about the services available to them.
Chris Charlton NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Chief Electoral Officer's report from the last campaign says that the proportion of electors who use their voter information cards with another authorized piece of identification—for example, a hospital bracelet—to cast their vote in seniors residences and long-term care facilities was about 73%.
Conservative changes to the act would remove this option for voter identification. Why would the government remove the voter information card and make it harder for seniors to vote?
Pierre Poilievre ConservativeMinister of State (Democratic Reform)
Mr. Speaker, it is quite the contrary. Canadians voted for many years without using the voter information card as a form of identification. It is a rather new phenomenon and a quite unsecure one. In fact, according to Elections Canada's own information, one in six people have false information on their voter information cards, and that can be used for the purposes of voter fraud.
We are not going to allow that to happen, but what we will require is for Elections Canada to better advertise what ID is required. There are 39 different pieces of ID people can bring. We are going to make sure that people know what they are.
Chris Charlton NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON
Mr. Speaker, the question was about seniors voting. Is the minister really suggesting that the very people who fought for our right to vote are now defrauding the system?
In the same report, the Chief Electoral Officer said 62% of students use their voter information cards to cast their ballots. When young people vote, they form habits that make them lifelong voters, but for students at school, proving their residency can often be a challenge.
Why is the government making it harder for young people to cast their votes?
Pierre Poilievre ConservativeMinister of State (Democratic Reform)
Mr. Speaker, once again it is quite the contrary. I have a list in my hands of the eligible ID that people can use, and it does include the student ID card. There are 38 other forms of identification that Elections Canada will be required under law to inform students of.
Furthermore, we will open up a new day of voting on which young people can vote. Right now, half of youth are not even aware that they can vote before election day. The law will be changed so that Elections Canada will clearly advertise those voting opportunities so that we can increase the turnout of our young people.
Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Mr. Speaker, under this bill, the Chief Electoral Officer can speak publicly only about certain topics that must be pre-approved by the Conservatives. One thing he will not be allowed to talk about is the state of our election system. That makes absolutely no sense.
Why do the Conservatives want to legislate to limit the freedom of expression of an officer of Parliament?
Pierre Poilievre ConservativeMinister of State (Democratic Reform)
Mr. Speaker, this is the problem that arises when the NDP members take a stance on a bill that they have never read.
Not only will the Chief Electoral Officer have the right to speak, but he will be required to do so. Under sections 533, 534 and 535, he is required to report to Parliament. These reports are automatically public. The Chief Electoral Officer will speak loudly and clearly to parliamentarians and all Canadians.
Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister said on CBC that he was willing to compromise. Perhaps he is beginning to realize his mistakes.
Under this bill, from now on, the Commissioner of Canada Elections will be under the authority of the Minister of Justice. If the bill passes in its present form, the commissioner will have to inform the Minister of Justice of any investigations under way, even if the commissioner is investigating the minister's own party.
Do the Conservatives really believe that this chain of command is appropriate?
Pierre Poilievre ConservativeMinister of State (Democratic Reform)
Mr. Speaker, all that member has to do to know that she is factually wrong is read section 2 of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act, which explicitly forbids the Attorney General/Justice Minister from having any involvement in prosecutions related to the Canada Elections Act. Furthermore, the Director of Public Prosecutions is selected by an independent committee that includes representatives of every political party, two senior public servants, and a member of the law society, and that director can only be removed by a vote of the House of Commons. Those are multiple layers of independence.
Alexandrine Latendresse NDP Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately that is not all that is wrong with the Elections Act reform. In fact, 73% of the people who live in long-term care facilities used their voter cards as identification in the last election, and 62% of students did the same thing. However, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform would like to prevent people from using their voter cards to vote.
Why are the Conservatives trying to suppress the right to vote of sick people and students?
