Debates of Feb. 25th, 2014

Finance

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, a study by the federal employment department proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that “the wages of middle income workers have stagnated” from 1993 to 2007. It goes on to say that “middle-income families are increasingly vulnerable to financial shocks.” That is the result of a generation of Liberal and Conservative policies, starting with the decision to dismantle employment insurance and reduce corporate income tax. Nothing to help families, nothing for job creation. When will the government do something to make life in Canada more affordable?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP leader quoted facts that are not accurate. He is talking about events that took place decades ago.

The reality is that Statistics Canada said today that the net worth of Canadian families since 2005 is up by 44.5% and indeed the biggest gains have been in the middle class.

Employment

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I was in Fort McMurray again last week, where temporary foreign workers are being exploited. Temporary foreign workers are being exploited and used to undercut wages in every industry from oil sands to fast food. Bringing in more temporary foreign workers, making people work an extra two years before they retire, attacking collective bargaining rights, forcing workers to take a 30% pay cut or be kicked off EI—every one of these policies is designed to forced Canadian workers to accept a lower wage instead of helping them earn a higher one. Why are Conservatives asking struggling Canadian families to accept even less?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, there are not going to be very many people in Alberta, or elsewhere, who see the irony of the leader of the NDP talking about people who are employed in Fort McMurray, because if the NDP ever had its way, with its policies, those jobs would be gone overnight. He even goes to Washington to lobby against those jobs. It is because of our government that those jobs are protected.

Democratic Reform

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for the Conservatives, fairness means evading responsibility and changing the rules after getting caught. A former Elections Canada lawyer says this act would stop Elections Canada from reporting to Parliament about the ongoing robocalls investigation. The person who can report to the public on Conservative wrongdoing during the last election is just the latest to be muzzled by the government. Why is the minister changing the rules and making it harder for Canadians to learn about potential election fraud?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of mistake that happens when the NDP gets its information from reading the newspaper instead of reading the bill.

The fair elections act has similar confidentiality provisions to those that exist already in Elections Canada's policy. That being said, if the commissioner believes that he would benefit from making information public, the proposed paragraph 510.1(2)(b) would allow him to do just that.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, now I understand why the minister is afraid to face Canadians, especially when the MP for Mississauga—Streetsville has to make stuff up in order to defend the bill.

Putting a gag order on Elections Canada does nothing to help make our elections more fair, but it does a lot to help Conservatives avoid embarrassment. If the minister truly believes his bill fights electoral fraud, will he stop ramming it through Parliament, agree to leave the “Ottawa bubble,” and consult Canadians?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, she might consider consulting the facts. The proposed paragraph 510.1(2)(b) states:

The Commissioner may disclose or may authorize any person acting under his or her direction to disclose

...(b) information that, in the Commissioner’s opinion, is necessary to carry out an investigation;

Additionally, court filings, compliance agreements, charges, and annual reports from the commissioner will be public. That is open. That is fair. That is the fair elections act.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for the botched attempt at electoral reform is the same MP who defended the Conservatives tooth and nail on the whole issue of fraudulent calls, regardless of the crimes they committed.

This time, his legislation will prevent Canadians from knowing what is going on with the whole affair, and he would have us believe that happened by chance. Honestly. Can the minister promise that his bill will in no way limit the Commissioner of Elections' ability to publicly disclose all of the information pertaining to an investigation?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, I just quoted the section of the fair elections act that would enable the commissioner to disclose all details of an investigation when he decides to do so.

However, also in the fair elections act we are requiring that something called a “compliance agreement” be made public. That is when an investigation happens and an agreement is signed thereafter. One compliance agreement dealt with the $340,000 in illegal union money that the NDP took. All of that was kept secret and the compliance agreement did not become public. It had to be leaked by a courageous whistleblower to the Toronto Star.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives committed to tightening the Elections Act after they were caught red-handed making fraudulent calls and deceiving people.

However, instead of tightening the rules, their electoral reform opens the door to other potential fraudulent actions. It makes voting harder for thousands of Canadians and sweeps the electoral fraud from the last election under the rug.

The minister needs to get out of the Ottawa bubble and consult Canadians to find out what they think. What is he afraid of?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, the fair elections act would keep everyday Canadians in charge of democracy by putting special interests on the sidelines and rule breakers out of business. It would close loopholes to big money, crack down on fraudulent voting, and bring in jail time for political impostors who make illegal rogue calls. It would make impersonations a crime. The fair elections act would protect the integrity of our electoral system. The NDP should read it first and then support it.

Prime Minister’s Office

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government can tell its seniors and veterans that the cupboard is bare, but now we find out that the Prime Minister's staffers mooched $68,000 in free lunches off the taxpayer in clear violation of the Treasury Board guidelines.

When an average Canadian family goes out for pizza, they do not expect their neighbours to pick up the tab. The rules are there to protect the taxpayer. Why does the Prime Minister think that he and his staff are somehow above the rules?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, as usual, the hon. member's allegation is false. In fact, the rules were not broken. But I can tell the House and I have the opportunity to offer some facts that I believe Canadians will be proud of. Since 2005–06, this government has cut hospitality expenses by 48%. Every year since coming to power, this government has spent less on hospitality than the previous Liberal government. That is something the taxpayers can be proud of.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the members opposite rode into Parliament on their trusty steed, the white horse of reform, promising to defend taxpayers at any price.

Today, they have to defend expensive lunches for PMO staffers, people with more ambition than principles who seem incapable of taking two pieces of bread, spreading them with mayonnaise and adding ham, cheese and lettuce—it is important to eat healthy—especially when taxpayers are footing the bill. Eight thousand dollars at Boston Pizza? Seriously? Where is that spirit of reform now? On lunch, too?

We want to know why the Prime Minister's Office is not following the rules set by the President of the Treasury Board.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, that story is false. No rules were broken. Since I have the chance to speak, I would like to offer some facts that I believe Canadians will be proud of. Since 2006, this government has cut hospitality expenses by 48%. Every year since coming to power, this government has spent less on hospitality than the Liberal government did in 2005.

Taxation

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister once believed and I quote, “There is no greater fraud than a promise not kept”. In 2008, his single biggest promise was cutting the diesel tax in half. But, like income splitting, once the votes were cast, he simply pretended it never happened. How can Canadians possibly trust the Conservatives when in the last three elections they broke every single one of their biggest promises?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Minister of State (Finance)]

Mr. Speaker, one thing that Canadians expected and got was lower taxes from this government. I do not even think most Canadians expected there would be 160 tax cuts that would put $3,400 into the pockets of the typical family of four, but they got it.

In fact, the economist from the Bank of Montreal said today that as a whole, Canadian families' overall finances are generally in good shape. The standout is the tremendous growth in net worth. It works out to average annual increases of better than 5%, which is very—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Bourassa.

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let us be serious. During the last election, the Prime Minister made a solemn promise to introduce income splitting. Now we know that the Minister of Finance is dragging his feet. He is not convinced.

My question is simple and clear, and it is for the Minister of National Revenue. I would like to know if the minister herself agrees with this measure. Yes or no?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Minister of State (Finance)]

Mr. Speaker, again, our government has delivered on promises of cutting taxes for Canadian families. For example, all members of this House and all people of Canada know that we have cut the GST from 7% to 5%. We have created a tax-free savings accounting, making it easier for Canadians to save for their retirement.

As I travelled around the country on the budget, nine million Canadians thanked us for the tax-free savings account that helps them in their retirement years. We established a $5,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers and brought in arts and fitness tax savings. We will continue to deliver tax relief for families.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are starting to get a sense of what a Conservative promise is worth. A promise on income splitting really meant not doing income splitting. A promise to exempt income trusts from taxation really meant not exempting them. A promise to eliminate capital gains tax really meant not eliminating the tax.

Does the Prime Minister still have a problem with Bev Oda inserting all those “nots” into her documents, or was it his idea in the first place?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Minister of State (Finance)]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting what the Liberal Party is not talking about today. The Liberal Party, first, is not talking about Ukraine. The Liberal Party today is not talking about the Stats Canada report that announced that the median net worth of Canadian families has risen by just under 45% since 2005. The Liberal Party today is not talking about the tax rate being the lowest in the last 50 years, as it is right now.

Again, it is interesting that the Liberals do not want to do anything that would look back on their record.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, grain is sitting in silos in western Canada going nowhere fast, farmers are losing money, and our international premium markets are being lost to our competitors, all because grain cannot get to port. What is the minister doing? Well, he sends the grain companies and the railroad companies a letter.

It takes more than a strongly worded letter to get our grain to port. Farmers in western Canada are looking to this minister for action, to move their grain to port before they go bankrupt. When will he act?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, we have been doing far more than strongly worded letters. We have actually been acting, working with all of the players in the supply chain. Of course, it is well documented that the underperformance of the railways is the weak link in that chain. We are moving forward collaboratively with my colleague the Minister of Transport to put in place whatever needs to be done to ensure that grain gets to port in a timely way.

The president of the Grain Growers of Canada stated:

We want to thank [the minister] for bringing all parties together at this meeting as a chance to engage directly with the railways and [we've begun] an ongoing dialogue for the future.

That is what we have been doing: facilitating the future.