Debates of Feb. 6th, 2014

Fair Elections Act

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There is no agreement.

Oral Questions. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

First Nations

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP first sounded the alarm a long time ago about the chronic under-funding of schools for first nations kids. Children in these schools receive 30% less funding than other children in Canada.

Will the government close this gap in its 2014 budget and provide equal funding for all first nations kids?

Will the government finally take action to close the education funding gap for first nations kids?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that the government remains committed to continuing to work in partnership with first nations to ensure that we can provide first nations students on reserve with an education system that will bring about results.

As I indicated before Christmas, of course funding will not replace reform, but it will accompany it when we have an agreement with first nations as to a legislative framework that can meet both our objectives.

Public Service of Canada

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, that was clear.

The President of the Treasury Board has made some alarming claims about rampant abuse of sick days in the public service. The minister has painted the public servants as scammers claiming 20% more sick days than they are allowed. The only problem is, it is not true. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has run the numbers and confirms that the minister misled Canadians and misled the House.

Does the minister have the courage to simply stand in the House and apologize to the thousands of public servants he has smeared?

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

Mr. Speaker, what I can tell the member, if he actually reads the report, is that the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirms that when we look at paid plus unpaid sick leave, it is 18.2 days, on average, for the public service, far and away above the absenteeism rate in the private sector, which was my original point.

Indeed, I have another point to make as well. It is that we have to make sure that for new hires of public servants, we have a fair system in place for them as well, which is not currently the case.

The hon. member talks about courage. I have the courage to stand in my place and stand for taxpayers. When will the NDP do the same?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, coming from the minister of gazebos, it is easy to believe that he does not actually know the difference.

The President of the Treasury Board made a very serious and false accusation. He said that public servants were abusing their sick leave. He claimed that they took 18 sick days a year, but he was comparing completely different things. It was a fabrication on his part. He was incorrect because he exaggerated and played with the figures, overstating them by almost 50%.

Why did he drag honest public servants through the mud?

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I would remind all hon. members to refer to one another by our proper titles or ridings.

The hon. President of the Treasury Board.

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

Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe it is important to protect taxpayers. The rate of absenteeism is unacceptable. We must make changes to better protect taxpayers and employees. The system needs to work for both parties.

On our side of the House, we are willing to come up with a system to work with our employees, have a better system for them, and to also protect the taxpayers. The union bosses the NDP deals with, they do not want to meet with me, but I am going to go--

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Democratic Reform

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, section 18 of the Conservatives' so-called fair elections act gives veto power over new voting methods to, wait for it, the Senate—yes, the unelected, unaccountable Conservative and Liberal Senate. Maybe that is why the Liberals were voting with the Conservatives today. Using closure to give a veto power to the unelected Senate: Is that the Conservatives' real idea of a democracy?

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

Mr. Speaker, what the amendments to section 18 actually do is require that before the CEO of Elections Canada experiments with new methods of voting, those methods are approved by Parliament.

One of the methods that has been discussed is online electronic voting. Now, the NDP tried electronic voting at its very convention and could not make it work. So if they could not make it work at their convention, why do they want the CEO to have the ability to do it, without Parliament's approval, for the entire national election?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, here is what does not work in a democracy: an unelected, unaccountable, under-indictment Senate. That is what does not work.

The Prime Minister has packed the Senate with defeated candidates, losers in every sense of the term. He is giving them a veto over the elections. Is that the real reason for this bill, to keep Conservative tactics rolling along even after the Conservatives themselves have been kicked out because they do not want to get rid of the senators?

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

Mr. Speaker, the provision that the leader of the New Democrats is referring to allows Parliament to consider ideas about new methods of voting before they are put before Canadians. If we want to have electronic voting, Parliament should be able to consider those ideas before they are implemented.

That is the best way to ensure the integrity of our electoral system. We will never apologize for putting Parliament in charge or for protecting the voting system.

The Budget

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in last year's budget, the Conservatives were priding themselves on their job creation. Today we learn that that was based on two fictitious measures. First, the job grant program has never existed, and second, the Conservatives have reduced the building Canada fund for infrastructure. They have not increased it, they have reduced it by $1.5 billion for the next two years.

In next week's budget, will they make up for that $3-billion hole?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have a long-term economic plan that includes helping families save money. We believe in creating a climate where jobs can be created so that every Canadian can have a brighter future right here in Canada.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, here are the facts. To concoct the false illusion of a new build Canada fund for infrastructure, last year's budget bundled together a 10-year period. The program is spent over 10 years, but the money is not. Most of it is back-end loaded, postponed for nearly a decade.

The fund does not recover to even last year's levels until 2019. In the meantime, over $3 billion is taken from municipalities. Will budget 2014 fill in that multibillion dollar Conservative hole in municipal infrastructure?

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities]

Mr. Speaker, the preamble of that member's question is in fact incorrect. It is this Conservative government that has made unprecedented investments in infrastructure, investments that have nearly tripled since 2006. In economic action plan 2013, we announced the longest and the largest infrastructure fund in Canadian history over 10 years.

In November, we provided the gas tax agreements to provinces. We are ready to sign those now. The details on the rest of the plan will be announced soon.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, if job creation is the government's priority, why is its job record the worst since the recession? If economic growth is the priority, why does it have the worst growth record since R.B. Bennett? Why are Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Mexico, the United States, and 132 other countries doing better? If prosperity is the priority, why do middle-class families have $1.64 in debt for every $1 of disposable income? Why are middle-class parents worried that their kids will not do as well as they did?

Will the budget fix any of that?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a little bit rich for this party over here to be criticizing this government on job creation. The Liberals have voted against every job-creation measure our government has put forward, including freezing the EI rates to provide certainty and flexibility for employers and employees, tax cuts to the manufacturing sector so it could bring forward new equipment and expand and perhaps even hire new people, and $70 billion in job-creating infrastructure.

With a fragile global economy, we must stay the course, and our low-tax plan for growth is the answer.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian citizenship is something to be proud of and the legislation governing it has to be thought through. On behalf of all Canadians, I am raising some concerns about the reform announced this morning, which, once again, will put even more power into the hands of the minister.

These are the same Conservatives who have bungled the family reunification program, created a fiasco out of the temporary foreign worker program and lost control of the backlog of immigration applications.

Will the minister learn from his past mistakes and work with experts to improve this bill?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians take pride in their Canadian citizenship. We are taking action to further strengthen that pride and the value of citizenship in this country with the first comprehensive reforms to the Citizenship Act since 1977. The strengthening Canadian citizenship act would deliver on our government's commitment to reduce backlogs and improve processing times, while strengthening the integrity of Canadian citizenship.

Under this Prime Minister and our Conservative government, over 1.4 million people have become Canadian citizens. We want newcomers to be welcomed as full members of the Canadian family, as citizens fully contributing to our economy and—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Davenport.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the Conservatives have failed to deal with the long and rising processing times and the massive delays in reuniting families. That is the real problem. What the minister says is, “Just give me more power and trust me”, but that is not going to cut it.

Why will the minister not drop the rhetoric, work with us, listen to immigrant families, and make some meaningful, some real changes to Canada's Citizenship Act?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, by not supporting this bill, the official opposition opposes demanding greater attachment to Canada and cracking down on fraud. It opposes efforts to effectively deal with backlogs. It even opposes efforts to revoke Canadian citizenship for dual nationals who engage in terrorism, espionage, and treason.

The NDP position is shameful. It is patently irresponsible. Sadly, though, it is the type of intellectual incoherence we have come to expect from the NDP on all citizenship and immigration matters.