House of Commons Hansard #51 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was million.

Topics

JusticeOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Central Nova Nova Scotia

Conservative

Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Elmwood—Transcona for his hard work and his question.

In fact, I cannot comment on the specifics of this case, but I can tell the member that our government has acted. We have introduced the not criminally responsible reform act. This proposed legislation would create a new designation to protect the public from high-risk accused individuals. Such a designation means that those found not criminally responsible and designated high-risk will not be released unless their designation is revoked by a court of law.

Unfortunately, the Liberal Party has been standing in the way of these entirely reasonable and important reforms. We urge the Liberal senators, former Senate Liberals, to get on with it and pass this important bill.

Prime Minister's OfficeOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Liberal

Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is Wednesday, and it sounds like it will be the same as every Wednesday for the last 10 years. A catering van will pull up to the Langevin Block with several hundred dollars of food to be provided to PMO staffers. Now, other chiefs of staff from other ministerial departments will horde on over. They will make their way to the Langevin Block to be able to get, both figuratively and liberally, a free lunch.

These Conservative staffers are not being held in a budget lockup and there is no emergency session, but like every Wednesday for the last 10 years, they will enjoy a free lunch paid for by taxpayers.

Will the President of the Treasury Board end this practice? Will he comply with the rules and will the kids in the short pants have the—

Prime Minister's OfficeOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The hon. President of the Treasury Board.

Prime Minister's OfficeOral Questions

3 p.m.

Parry Sound—Muskoka Ontario

Conservative

Tony Clement ConservativePresident of the Treasury Board

Mr. Speaker, the rules have not been broken. Indeed, this has been referred to officials. Politicians do not get to make these decisions; they are made by officials in the PCO.

I can tell members that when we compare with the time the hon. member was in government, the choice and comparison are very clear. We have spent less every year on hospitality since we were elected into power than the Liberals did in their final year of government.

That is a record we are proud of. We are proud that we have cut hospitality expenses by 48% across government. That is the kind of expectation that taxpayers have of their government, and we are delivering.

Fisheries and OceansOral Questions

February 25th, 2014 / 3 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, the Nuu-chah-nulth first nations had to resort to the courts to stop the minister from reopening the commercial herring fishery off the west coast of Vancouver Island. She ignored scientific evidence and the advice of her own department to wait until the recovery of the stock was guaranteed.

Now that the Federal Court has overruled her decision, will the minister finally listen to first nations and her department's own scientists and stop putting the herring fishery at risk?

Fisheries and OceansOral Questions

3 p.m.

Egmont P.E.I.

Conservative

Gail Shea ConservativeMinister of Fisheries and Oceans

Mr. Speaker, my decision to reopen the herring fishery in the three previously closed areas was based on the department's scientific advice. In fact, the stocks in question were more than 7,000 tonnes higher than what science required for reopening.

We are currently reviewing the court's decision, so I cannot comment further at this time.

Canadian HeritageOral Questions

3 p.m.

Conservative

Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian film industry contributes significantly to our country and economy. Canadian films are among the best in the world. Our government supports this industry very generously to help it grow the economy, create jobs, and share our stories with the world.

Arts, culture, and heritage represent close to $50 billion of our economy and close to 630,000 jobs. Could the Minister of Canadian Heritage inform the House of what she is doing to promote our Canadian film industry?

Canadian HeritageOral Questions

3 p.m.

Saint Boniface Manitoba

Conservative

Shelly Glover ConservativeMinister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages

Mr. Speaker, every year, our government allocates more than $600 million to the audiovisual sector by investing in Telefilm Canada, the National Film Board and the Canada Council for the Arts, and by providing tax credits.

This evening, we will be screening the movie Gabrielle at movie night. This movie, which has garnered international acclaim, was directed by Louise Archambault, produced by Kim McCraw and Luc Déry, and stars Gabrielle Marion-Rivard, Alexandre Landry, Mélissa Désormeaux-Poulin and young people from Les Muses school.

I invite all parliamentarians to join us at 7 p.m. this evening at the National Arts Centre.

HealthOral Questions

3 p.m.

NDP

Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Port of Québec and Quebec Stevedoring are not co-operating with the monitoring committee that was created by the Government of Quebec, the city and citizens who are concerned about the nickel dust contamination.

The lack of co-operation from the port authority, which is under federal jurisdiction, tells me that the government is not taking this situation seriously.

Does the Minister of Transport condone this lack of transparency from the port authority and the offending company because their executives are big Conservative Party donors?

HealthOral Questions

3 p.m.

Halton Ontario

Conservative

Lisa Raitt ConservativeMinister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, absolutely not. The Port of Quebec is an arm's-length organization that is responsible for its own decisions. As well, in exercising those decisions, it has to do so with the concerns of the local citizens in mind.

I encourage the Port of Quebec and the Quebec government to work together to ensure that the citizens are protected in the way that they should be, and also to deal with dust emissions in the appropriate manner, as supervised by the environmental people in Quebec.

International DevelopmentOral Questions

3 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-François Fortin Bloc Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Government of Quebec and the Association québécoise des organismes de coopération internationale jointly released a report that clearly shows that the federal government's approach is moving further and further away from the values of Quebec regarding international solidarity and practices that are considered effective and ethical by development experts.

After consulting about 60 organizations and experts in the field, the report recommends that Quebec create its own agency with its own policy on international solidarity.

Does the government recognize Quebec's right to do so, and will it transfer to Quebec its rightful share of the international assistance envelope?

International DevelopmentOral Questions

3 p.m.

Mégantic—L'Érable Québec

Conservative

Christian Paradis ConservativeMinister of International Development and Minister for La Francophonie

Mr. Speaker, Canadians and Quebeckers can all be proud of our achievements in the area of international assistance.

I would remind the House that thanks to the Muskoka initiative, under the Prime Minister's leadership, 1.3 million children under the age of five have been saved from premature death. In addition, 64,000 mothers have been saved from certain death. These universal values are shared by all Canadians. We are proud of these achievements, and we will continue on that path.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is no surprise to you, Mr. Speaker, that the level of noise and heckling in the last part of question period was a violation of Parliament's rules. I do not want to belabour the point, but I cannot even continue with this point of order because of the noise in this place.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Order. What the hon. member's point is referring to is some of the noise that rises from time to time in question period. Being at this end of the Chamber, I do my best to encourage members, without interrupting the flow of question period too much, to come to order, so I take her point very well.

I will take this opportunity to ask all hon. members to refrain from applause and outbursts while members are trying to put the question, and likewise, as well, while they are trying to answer it.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is not just the applause. The rules are very clear. Standing Order 16.2 states, “When a Member is speaking, no Member shall...interrupt him or her, except to raise a point of order”.

Standing Order 18 states that no member shall speak disrespectfully of other members in this place.

One would think there were no standing orders. One would think that this was—

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Order. The Chair has been informed that the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley wishes to add to the question of privilege.

Statements by Member for Mississauga—StreetsvillePrivilegeOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to the question of privilege I raised earlier today.

The member for Mississauga—Streetsville rose in his place shortly before question period to say that he had recently reviewed the blues and realized that he had accidentally misled the House.

He has been in this place long enough to know that the whole point of the blues, the early recording of what happens in House of Commons debates, is to fix any inaccuracies in them before they are published at the end of the day. That is why they are sent to all MPs shortly after they speak.

The House then sat for six more days before it was adjourned for constituency week last week.

This cannot possibly have been the first opportunity to realize that he had been making up false stories and uttering them in the House. What I am saying to the Conservatives across the way is that it is difficult to accept the member's explanation of events. It is difficult to even believe the member after he so brazenly and deliberately misled the House of Commons.

To verify his account, it would be useful to hear from the sources he cited as to the events that took place and therefore to have the procedure and House affairs committee study the matter and call those sources of information to testify. We are faced with a clear-cut case of prima facie contempt of Parliament. All members would benefit from a proper review of the issue at committee.

I remain ready to re-move the appropriate motion, should the Speaker be ready to rule. You were not in your chair, Mr. Speaker, at the moment the member for Mississauga—Streetsville decided to rise. Typically, on important issues like this, members notify the Speaker's office so that he or she would be able to hear first-hand their argument.

The intervention by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville this afternoon did nothing to address the three conditions that you, Mr. Speaker, have set out when studying whether a member of the House has misled this place: first, it must be proven that the statement was misleading; second, it must be established that the member making the statement knew at the time that the statement was incorrect; and third, in making the statement, the member intended to mislead the House.

Earlier today I outlined our argument as to why this has been satisfied in all three cases for the member in question. He claimed to have witnessed voter fraud first-hand. He gave great detail about a crime he had witnessed, yet no explanation as to why he did not report it to police and no explanation as to why he then uttered it a second time in the House of Commons.

This was not a misspoken word or two. These were two separate accounts by the member of things he claims to have witnessed that in fact he did not. How could the intention have been anything other than to make the House think he had witnessed something that is not true? Perhaps he might not have intended to offend the House, but there can be no doubt that he intended to mislead the House of Commons.

Statements by Member for Mississauga—StreetsvillePrivilegeOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I thank the hon. opposition House leader for his further contribution on this point. I will endeavour to get back to the House in due course.

The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

NDP

Fin Donnelly NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to budget 2014. The government's budget document was over 400 pages, but I must say that it is very thin on ideas and solutions.

The Minister of Finance speaks of returning to a balanced budget, yet this is the government that has created the largest deficit in Canadian history and has delivered eight deficit budgets in a row.

Under the watch of the Conservatives, more than $100 billion has been added to our national debt over the past six years. Their corporate tax cuts have resulted in over $200 billion in foregone revenue over the past six years. At the same time, they are failing to address high unemployment, especially among youth, and record levels of personal debt.

When we talk about managing the economy, Conservatives and Liberals like to sling mud at the NDP, but when we look at the actual numbers, New Democrat governments have the best record of delivering balanced budgets.

New Democrats have a progressive vision for our country, one that promotes a strong economy without compromising social or environmental prosperity. We believe in creating good quality jobs, protecting public health care, providing affordable child care, and protecting our environment. We believe that seniors should not have to work an extra two years before they are eligible to retire. Our vision is affordable and inclusive.

Government revenues would increase by reversing the Conservatives' corporate tax cuts, by creating value-added jobs here at home instead of shipping our jobs and resources overseas, and by ending subsidies to highly profitable oil and gas companies. It is about priorities and prosperity for all Canadians, not just the ultra-rich and well-connected.

This year's budget has been criticized as a Conservative re-election strategy: Do nothing this year, then roll out the goodies before next year's election. It contains many re-announcements of previously committed funds, especially on infrastructure.

My riding has one of the highest commuter rates. Traffic congestion is a daily reality, and infrastructure has not kept pace with our transportation needs. I fought hard to ensure that the Evergreen Line would finally be built, but more work remains. Sewers and waterlines need upgrading, bridges need replacing, and we need more sidewalks and walking paths. The government continues to expect cities to do more with less, to pay for transit infrastructure with uncertain and limited gas tax revenues.

Our region is one of the most unaffordable places to live in Canada. I am disappointed that the government is not addressing affordable housing in this budget. Housing is a basic need, and affordability affects us all, from mortgage rates and property values to the limited supply of quality rental suites. I am concerned about those living in co-ops who rely on a federal subsidy to help pay the rent. Many of these subsidies will soon expire, leaving residents with limited options.

Community groups that provide housing for the homeless and other vulnerable members of society are concerned that the new criteria for the homelessness partnering strategy may prevent them from accessing federal funding.

Housing for those who require mental health care is a concern for many in my riding. We cannot continue to let Riverview Hospital deteriorate before eyes. We need a vision for this site that preserves the land for public use and that addresses the lack of mental health housing in the region.

In this year's budget, the Conservatives continue their assault on public servants and labour unions. They are going after employee compensation through bargaining, focusing on disability and sick leave, despite a PBO report confirming that public sector sick leave is actually in line with the private sector.

Just before Christmas, many Canadians were shocked to learn that Canada Post intends to end door-to-door delivery service, increase the price of stamps, and lay off thousands of employees. These cuts will certainly affect seniors and people with reduced mobility. They also raise mail security issues.

Conservatives seem to think that this is a great idea. Canada Post's CEO even suggested that it would give seniors a chance to exercise more. Only a New Democrat government would defend workers, the middle class, and our most vulnerable.

British Columbia has the unenviable distinction of having one of the worst rates of child poverty in this country. It is not acceptable that one in five children lives in poverty.

This callous response by the government is on the record: “Is it my job to feed my neighbour's child? I don't think so”.

Adopting a poverty reduction plan with targets and a coordinated set of policies is the only proven way to eliminate poverty. However, this requires political will. The government could wipe out poverty among seniors with the stroke of a pen by simply increasing the guaranteed income supplement. Instead, seniors face rising costs on everything from prescription medications to electricity bills.

Last weekend, a team of volunteers joined me in a neighbourhood canvass to talk with their neighbours about affordability issues. People told us that they are feeling nickel-and-dimed to death.

The NDP has put forward simple, practical solutions to help make life more affordable. We believe that the government should regulate outrageous credit card processing fees that eat into small business profits. It should cap ATM fees, which are among the highest in the world. It should crack down on predatory payday lenders and prevent companies from charging customers a monthly fee just to receive a paper copy of their bills.

Many Canadians are unaware of the existing benefits available to them. After hosting a seminar on the disability tax credit, my office helped one family claim $5,500 in a tax refund it was entitled to.

I have also assisted small businesses in accessing government funding for innovation. Small and medium-size enterprises drive our economy and create the majority of new jobs in this country. However, with nearly 300,000 more people unemployed today than before the recession, the government is simply not doing enough. It should be helping SMEs to succeed, not hindering them.

Another NDP proposal for this year's budget asks the government to reinstate the popular ecoENERGY home retrofit program. This program is a win-win. It saves families money, creates good quality jobs, reduces energy consumption, and more than pays for itself in economic spinoffs and tax revenues.

Last weekend I was on the doorsteps. I had several conversations with constituents about Bill C-23, the unfair elections act. They are alarmed by the Conservatives' cynical approach, which they feel will bring American-style politics north.

The Conservatives' scheme to overhaul Canada's Election Act reeks of a government that puts political interests ahead of the national interest. Bill C-23 aims to make it harder, not easier, to vote by scrapping voter information cards and eliminating the vouching system. It restricts Elections Canada from promoting the very act of voting, leaving that responsibility to political parties.

At a time when voters feel alienated from the democratic process, the Conservatives are moving to disenfranchise even more people from their right to vote. Canadians are asking for real electoral reform, not blatant partisan attempts to tip the scales in one party's favour.

I have long held the position that Canada should adopt an electoral system of proportional representation to ensure that voters' expressions are better represented. I was speaking to concerned citizens in my riding last week from Fair Vote Canada, who raised this very issue.

I also continue to hear loud and clear from constituents who are fed up with paying for an unelected, unaccountable, and still under-investigation Senate. New Democrats believe in abolishing this archaic institution and focusing on making Parliament work for all Canadians.

The NDP's vision for our country is one that promotes economic stability without sacrificing social or environmental prosperity. We need a government that understands the realities of today and that is willing to tackle the tough challenges of tomorrow. We need a government that agrees that it is our responsibility to ensure that future generations have clean and safe drinking water, healthy rivers and oceans, abundant wild salmon, and a stable climate.

In conclusion, while there are some positive elements in this budget, I cannot support a budget so thin on ideas and solutions.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, one of the areas of concern I have expressed virtually from day one, since first being elected to the House, is the issue of crime in our country. One of the biggest concerns is that we do not prioritize highly enough the need to prevent crimes in the first place. That is something of critical importance for many communities. I know in Winnipeg North there would have been a greater expectation that we would see something in the budget that would provide opportunities for community groups and others, which have a vested interest in that area, to look at programs that could be developed and promoted to prevent crimes in the first place.

I ask the member if he might provide some comment on what he feels about initiatives that could maybe make a difference if the government had taken a higher interest in crime prevention in our communities through the budget.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

NDP

Fin Donnelly NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Speaker, certainly, putting funding into crime prevention has been shown in study after study to go a long way in increasing public safety in communities. The budget would not do that. In fact, we could look at other areas, like health care. Putting funding and resources into health prevention is also just as important and fundamentally helps increase health in communities.

The member mentioned consultation and the lack of government consultation in not just public safety but many areas. As I pointed out, in my consultations with my constituents I am hearing from people who are very concerned about the lack of consultation on a significant piece of legislation, the unfair elections act. That is what the government really needs to listen to; not just consultation on the budget, but on other proposals like the unfair elections act.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Okanagan—Coquihalla B.C.

Conservative

Dan Albas ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's speech. I paid very close attention, particularly when he was speaking about the gas tax, as well as municipalities and their needs. Absolutely, municipalities have a lot of needs. My area of West Kelowna is a great example of a community that is trying to build up from a rural standard to a more urban standard.

We have made the gas tax statutory in law, so it happens automatically. We have doubled it. We have indexed it to inflation. I know the member is from a more urban riding. Metro Vancouver receives all of that money and that doubled support, so it can deal with its priority, which I understand is public transit. The gas tax will see further changes to make it more flexible for communities.

Our government's record on gas tax and support for communities is unparalleled. B.C. only received $1.5 billion under the Liberals. We have over $4.5 billion under our government. Would the member not agree that $4.5 billion is a heck of a lot more than the previous Liberal government's $1.5 billion, specific for British Columbia?

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

NDP

Fin Donnelly NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Speaker, absolutely. In my consultations, I consulted with the municipalities in my riding. Certainly, New Westminster has pointed out, in its infrastructure needs for transportation, that it is looking for a predictable, reliable source of funding. Certainly they are looking for more funding and the gas tax is important. It is an important financing tool for local government. However, being a former city councillor, I recognize that cities are being downloaded on more and more. Federal and senior levels of government are turning to local governments to do more and more, but they are not handing over the predictable, stable financing tools needed to carry out the job and get the job done.

So while I appreciate the comment, more needs to be done to satisfy the work that has to happen, not just in urban municipalities but in rural ones right across the country.