Debates of Feb. 5th, 2014

Democratic Reform

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, “clearer from the truth”; now there is one for the prime ministerial archives.

In 2011, about 100,000 Canadians who did not have ID, including aboriginal peoples and seniors, were able to vote if someone vouched for them. Exactly how many people who were not entitled to vote were prosecuted during the last election? We know that 100,000 were able to vote. How many of those were actually illegal votes? Two or three?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that this proposal, the fair elections act, arms Elections Canada with methods of providing more information about when and where the voting is taking place and about the voting process. Elections Canada needs to be able to do its work. This legislation helps it do just that.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, do the Conservatives really want to help people to vote? The bill is more about suppressing the vote than helping people to vote.

Elections Canada has confirmed that there are no irregularities with the overwhelming majority of people who vote with the help of the current vouching system. If there are problems with the system, why not fix them? Why is the Prime Minister removing tools that actually help people to vote?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the opposite is true. The fair elections act lays out specifically the jobs of Elections Canada to make sure it informs people, where, when, and how to vote, and what ID specifically to use at a vote.

Many of these reforms are long overdue. They will sharpen law enforcement, strengthen the reach of law enforcement personnel, and correct many of the deficiencies that were well documented in the review of the last election campaign.

As long as the NDP sinks into conspiracy theories and rejects the verdict of Canadians in the last election, we will be happy to receive continued mandates from them.

Finance

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last year's budget introduced millions in new taxes on imports, ranging from saris to wigs for cancer patients. With the lower dollar, these tax increases on Canadians will cost us even more. Will the government repeal its tax increases on middle-class Canadians in next week's budget?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, of course, nothing would be further from the truth. What the government did do is to make sure that Canadian producers were on a level playing field with some specific countries, emerging economies that are very powerful economies that had special tax preferences. Obviously, that is not appropriate. Our government remains committed to balancing the budget and rejecting all of the various tax increases proposed by the hon. member and his party.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a math teacher should not have to explain to an economist the impact on import tariffs when the dollar falls.

Last year's budget did nothing for the middle class. Instead, it contained absurd taxes on imports such as tricycles and toothbrushes.

The lower dollar makes these tax hikes on imports even more expensive.

Will the government eliminate these tax increases for the middle class in next week's budget?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly look forward to seeing the day where the leader of the Liberal Party does explain his positions to various economists.

The Liberal Party regularly proposes tax increases that affect Canadian consumers and taxpayers. That is not something that our party supports.

The Liberal Party defends special exemptions for Chinese industries. That is not acceptable.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the IMF reports that our economy grew only 1.6% last year. It also projects that Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Norway, and the U.S. will all grow faster than us this year. This Prime Minister has the worst economic record on growth since R.B. Bennett in the depths of the great depression. After eight years of anemic growth, will we see anything new in next week's budget to help Canada's middle class?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians and economic experts around the world, including the OECD and the IMF, recognize that Canada has gone through the recession and come out of the recession with among the strongest growth and employment rates and records in the developed world. The prospects for continued growth going forward, according to all of these experts, are very strong and the government is, in almost every case, following the various recommendations that these organizations suggest.

On all these things, I am sure I could suggest any number of people who could walk the leader of the Liberal Party through it.

Ethics

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, a year ago in the House, the Prime Minister said, “Mr. Speaker, all senators conform to the residency requirements” in the Constitution. That, of course, now, is absolutely false. The audits of Senators Wallin, Duffy, and others made it clear that some senators never met the requirements in the first place.

Would the Prime Minister now admit what every Canadians knows, that his senators never met the residency requirements to begin with?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said repeatedly, there are various standards that have to be met to be appointed to the Senate. It is a matter of fact, as we know, that members of Parliament in both Houses more often than not maintain two residences. The fact that a member maintains two residences is not at issue here. What is at issue is the improper, and in some cases fraudulent, claiming of expenses. The government has been very clear that is not acceptable, that there would be consequences. Those senators are now seeing those consequences.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that, according to the police, Nigel Wright informed the Prime Minister that the very scheme used by Mike Duffy was also being used by others, such as Senators Brazeau, Wallin, Stewart-Olsen, Kinsella and Ringuette.

Why are some being charged while others are not? Why is there a double standard? What is the explanation for that?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is the RCMP's responsibility to conduct the investigations.

The RCMP has been clear about who is and who is not being investigated. Obviously, what the Leader of the Opposition has said is not factual.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, actually, it is there in the police report. The Prime Minister was warned by Nigel Wright that other senators did not meet the residency requirements, so why did the Prime Minister insist that they did? The answer to that, we suspect, is also in the police report.

Is it because that was part of his deal with Mike Duffy? Yes, or no?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, clearly what the Leader of the Opposition says are not the facts. The RCMP has been very clear in terms of the matter between Mr. Duffy and Mr. Wright that I was not informed of that. The RCMP has been crystal clear on that.

Democratic Reform

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, 100,000 people had their votes vouched for in the last campaign. This includes aboriginal citizens, low-income people, new Canadians, students, and people with disabilities.

The question is, why is the government making it harder for these Canadians to exercise their right to vote?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are not; we are making it easier, by requiring Elections Canada to advertise to these very people which types of identification are required to vote.

The Leader of the Opposition gave false information earlier when he said that Elections Canada indicated there were no mistakes. In fact, according to Elections Canada's own commissioned report, there was a 25% error rate. The audit showed that errors are made in the majority of cases that require the use of non-regular processes. This is such a non-regular process.

The reality is that vouching is not safe; it is not secure. After the fair elections act is passed, it will not be allowed.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court said there was no evidence that any of those irregularities occurred with people who did not have the right to vote, so this is an absolute red herring.

On another issue, the elections commissioner is moving to the Director of Public Prosecutions and away from the Chief Electoral Officer. The Chief Electoral Officer is appointed to and is responsible to Parliament, but the DPP is appointed by the Attorney General. Why is the government removing parliamentary oversight from the elections commissioner?

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

Mr. Speaker, I recommend that the hon. member read the Director of Public Prosecutions Act. If he did, he would know that he and every single member of the House has the responsibility to vote on removing a Director of Public Prosecutions. The government cannot fire him by itself. That is the responsibility of Parliament. In fact, his very appointment has to be approved by a committee that has members from each political party, two senior public servants, and a member of the law society, and then his appointment is approved by an all-party committee at Parliament.

That is accountability and it is also independence.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform told the House that one of the reasons why people do not vote is because they do not have information.

If that is the case, why does his new bill prevent Elections Canada from advertising and giving voters information?

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

Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats should read the bill.

We are doing the exact opposite. We are requiring that Elections Canada advertise so that Canadians have information on how, where and when to vote, as well as the different options and the types of identification required to vote. We are creating a requirement.

Furthermore, we will require that Elections Canada inform disabled people about the special tools that will be available to them to help them vote.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill also states that fundraising from individuals who have donated to a political party in the past will no longer be calculated as an election expense.

Could the minister explain why he inserted this measure that clearly puts the Conservative Party at an advantage?

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

Mr. Speaker, the rule will apply to all parties.

The reality is that campaigning is distinct from raising funds to run a campaign. We are acknowledging that parties have a responsibility to reach out over 10 million square kilometres across this vast country of ours, and that requires them to raise money. However, the act of raising money is not synonymous with the act of actually spending it on a campaign. Therefore, those costs associated with fundraising will be excluded from the spending cap under the Canada Elections Act.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the power to compel witnesses to appear is a right that even parliamentary committees have. However, the Conservatives have refused to include this right in their reform of the Elections Act. That is a strange coincidence since we know that the Conservatives have refused to co-operate with Elections Canada on the investigation into the fraudulent calls.

Why have they refused to include the power to compel witnesses to appear in the reform of the Elections Act?