House of Commons Hansard #48 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was million.
Leona Aglukkaq ConservativeMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, our government is a world leader when it comes to addressing climate change.
We continue to work with the provinces and the territories on reducing emissions from the oil and gas sector. It is premature to comment further on any future regulations.
What I can say is that thanks to our actions, we have seen significant reductions in greenhouse gases, unlike the NDP who think that we can tax our way out of greenhouse gases.
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, more and more provinces are coming out against the Conservatives' budgetary approach. One thing that really frustrates them is the April 1 ultimatum regarding the Canada job grant. By refusing to hold consultations and interfering in provincial jurisdictions, the Conservatives are punishing workers first and foremost, and they are stifling economic development.
I understand that things are not so rosy right now between the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Employment. Could they at least talk to one another and commit to withdrawing their ultimatum, which is doing nothing to help train workers?
Jason Kenney ConservativeMinister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism
Mr. Speaker, we obviously need to do better when it comes to public investments in skills training. We also need to increase private sector investments in training. We need to connect training with real jobs. That is the goal of the Canada job grant. That is why we are working closely with the provinces to reach an agreement.
By the end of the fiscal year, we hope to be able to deliver not only training, but also jobs for young Canadians.
Sylvain Chicoine NDP Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC
Mr. Speaker, this budget does not reverse the irresponsible and shameful cuts to veterans' services and, what is more, the Conservatives are also increasing taxes on the pensions of those who have served our country. Like public servants, members of the military will have to pay more for their pension plan. The Conservatives want to take hundreds of dollars more out of veterans' pockets.
Why are the Conservatives looking for more concessions from our veterans?
Dan Albas ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board
Mr. Speaker, the question is misleading.
Veterans with service-related conditions are covered by the new veterans charter program. What we are discussing here are changes to voluntary supplementary health benefits.
It is fair and reasonable that the costs of this voluntary supplementary health care coverage be split evenly with the taxpayers of Canada. Even with the changes, this remains an excellent deal and it will remain an affordable plan.
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Mr. Speaker, in 1995 the Liberal government changed the means test of the Last Post Fund from an entry level of $24,000 in income to $12,000 in income. Unfortunately, 19 years later, the means test is still at $12,000.
Now I thank the government very much for the fact that there is more money in the Last Post Fund. Some modern day veterans may now be eligible. However, if the means test is not changed, many families and their veterans who pass away will not have access to the Last Post Fund.
Will the government now change the means test so that more veterans who pass away and their families will have access to the program?
Julian Fantino ConservativeMinister of Veterans Affairs
Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member that our government remains committed to ensuring that Canadian veterans and their families have the support they need.
That is why in economic action plan 2014, veterans' families can now avail themselves of some $108 million-plus with regard to the Last Post Fund to ensure that the modern day veterans previously excluded will be able to have a dignified burial.
We are doing the best we can, and we will continue working for our veterans.
Chris Charlton NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have blocked cross-country hearings on their unfair elections act. Obviously, they are afraid of public opinion. They are proposing massive and complex changes to our election laws that would significantly change the way our democracy operates.
Unlike the Conservatives, the NDP wants Canadians to have their say. Why are the Conservatives so opposed to consulting Canadians?
Pierre Poilievre ConservativeMinister of State (Democratic Reform)
Mr. Speaker, she mentions the changes in the fair elections act. In fact, there are changes that would keep everyday Canadians in charge of democracy by putting special interests on the sidelines and rule breakers out of business. The bill would close loopholes to big money, such as the one the Liberals used to turn unpaid debts into illegal donations. It would crack down on political impostors who make rogue calls. It would make it easier to vote for law-abiding citizens, while preventing voter fraud.
Chris Charlton NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have admitted that the reason they do not want hearings is because they are too afraid of public opinion. They are shutting down debate in the House and refusing to consult Canadians.
From Squamish to St. John's, Canadians are concerned, and they want an opportunity to have their say. Elections belong to the people, not to politicians.
Why won't the government take the time to listen to Canadians?
Pierre Poilievre ConservativeMinister of State (Democratic Reform)
Mr. Speaker, we have listened to Canadians. They told us that they want better law enforcement. That is why we are giving the watchdog of elections law sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand.
“Sharper teeth” means stronger penalties for existing offences. “Longer reach” means dozens of new offences that he would enforce, including a prohibition on obstructing the watchdog's investigations or lying to his investigators. “A freer hand” means that the watchdog would be completely independent, controlling his own investigations and his own staff, and that no one could fire him without cause.
Alexandrine Latendresse NDP Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives stubbornly refuse to consult Canadians because, according to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the NDP might mobilize too many people to challenge the bill.
I would like to thank him very much for complimenting our organizational abilities. In fact, the NDP does not have to do anything to mobilize people against this affront to our democracy. The Conservatives should leave their Ottawa bubble and listen to what people in Quebec City, Sept-Îles, Trois-Rivières and Sherbrooke have to say. What are they afraid of?
Pierre Poilievre ConservativeMinister of State (Democratic Reform)
Mr. Speaker, that is why we want a debate on the substance of the Fair Elections Act. Even before reading a single word of the bill, the NDP were against it. They should work with us to strengthen our legislation and prevent fraudulent calls and illegal donations, such as the union donations that the NDP accepted.
Alexandrine Latendresse NDP Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Mr. Speaker, I knew that the Conservatives routinely prevent debate in the House. I knew that they prefer to circumvent the legislative process and disregard any democratic legitimacy, but this time the Conservatives are clearly laughing at Canadians.
They are using the bill to give their party an advantage in the next election, and they do not even bother to listen to what Canadians have to say, probably because they are afraid of what they will hear.
If the Conservatives want to judge the quality of the Chief Electoral Officer's work, why not ask Canadians what they think?
Democratic ReformOral Questions
February 13th, 2014 / 2:35 p.m.
Nepean—Carleton Ontario
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre ConservativeMinister of State (Democratic Reform)
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have told us that they do not believe in voter fraud. That is why the fair elections act will protect the integrity of our voting system.
In the last election, for example, according to a report by Elections Canada's own commission, we know that there were 50,000 irregularities linked to vouching. In fact, those were serious errors. Judges described them as serious enough to potentially overturn existing votes and maybe even elections in individual ridings.
We think that is serious enough to tackle, and that is what the fair elections act would do by ending vouching as a use of identification.
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance attacked the Conservative policy on income splitting. He said, “I'm not sure that overall it benefits our society” and “I think income splitting needs a long, hard analytical look by our think tanks”.
This analysis has already been done, in fact, by the C.D. Howe Institute and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Now that the analysis by think tanks has actually happened, does the minister agree with these think tanks that income splitting would do nothing for 86% of Canadian families, and that “it’s an expensive tax gift for the rich”?
Jim Flaherty ConservativeMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, when I contemplate thinking about issues, I rarely think of the Liberal Party.
As I have said, once the budget is balanced, which it is not yet, our government is committed to greater tax relief for Canadian families, and only Conservatives, because our track record shows it, can be trusted to reduce taxes for Canadian families.
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Mr. Speaker, when I think about balanced budgets, I rarely think of the minister.
Yesterday the minister dismissed the Conservative election promise on income splitting. He said he is not sure that it benefits society. He said that other priorities should be acted on before income splitting, but the employment minister disagreed. He said, “We keep our election promises. We made this commitment to do this policy in the next budget”.
Does the finance minister still speak for the government on tax policy like income splitting, or is it now the employment minister who speaks on fiscal policy for the government?
Jim Flaherty ConservativeMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member opposite that it is this government that brought in pension splitting back in 2006, which has been a remarkable success and which, for some strange reason, the opposition voted against.
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Mr. Speaker, for eight long years, nearly every piece of military equipment purchased, even those deemed urgent, has been botched or cancelled outright. This budget slashes $3 billion from defence equipment spending, and that is on top of $7 billion that had been clawed back previously. The Conservatives' failed defence strategy is little more than a tax-funded photo op with troops while secretly balancing the budget on their backs.
What exactly is being cut this time, and what essential equipment will our troops continue to have to do without?
James Bezan ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, there has been no cut, and any suggestions from the opposition are completely false.
Since national defence did not spend the money this year, economic action plan 2014 will ensure that all of this money will remain available to the Canadian Armed Forces next year and into the future.
Again, this money is there when the armed forces need it. After the Liberal decade of darkness, we have put our men and women in uniform first by increasing the national defence budget by 27% since 2006. We have made the single largest investment in our armed forces in a century, and the budget continues in the same direction.
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Mr. Speaker, MMA has been involved in 129 accidents and has repeatedly violated safety rules. For years, the government has done nothing. There has not been one single fine. The victims of Lac-Mégantic are suing Transport Canada for allowing MMA to run trains through their towns despite the company's terrible safety record.
Will the minister now join with the people of Lac-Mégantic and prosecute MMA? Which side is she on, the people of Lac-Mégantic or the violators?
Lisa Raitt ConservativeMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member across knows, because we saw each other there, I was in Lac-Mégantic and I witnessed the devastation. It is something one never gets out of one's mind, so, of course, just as the Prime Minister says, we stand behind the people of Lac-Mégantic in all of their troubles and we will be there for them without a doubt.
With respect to the difficulties with MMA and its non-compliance with the rules, this is exactly why last year we brought in the ability to administer fines. Before then, it simply did not exist.
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Mr. Speaker, 21 violations were documented between 2004 and 2013, but MMA received no penalty here, whereas it received 28 fines in the United States. That is the rail safety record of the Conservatives and the Liberals.
Yesterday, the minister said, “If this company is found to have violated the rules and regulations of this country, it will absolutely be penalized to the ultimate extent of the law”.
The company has violated the rules and regulations 21 times. Why has it never been penalized?
Lisa Raitt ConservativeMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, Transport Canada has a variety of compliance measures that they use on those infractions, but that is the past. What this government has done is brought in the ability for front-line workers to fine companies that are in violation of rules and regulations.
As these investigations continue and we get the results of these investigations, it is very clear that if there are violations to the Railway Safety Act or the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, there will be prosecutions to the full extent of the law.