Debates of March 4th, 2014

Democratic Reform

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister keeps referring back to fraud statistics and making bizarre and unsubstantiated claims that eliminating voter ID cards would eliminate fraud.

As many as 800,000 people used these cards to cast their ballots in seniors' residences and long-term care facilities. Up to 70,000 used them on first nations reserves.

Would the minister put aside his bizarre, make-believe attacks and tell Canadians if he honestly believes these voter ID cards are the source of electoral fraud, yes or no?

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

Mr. Speaker, yes.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the minister came down from his ivory tower, he would see that his view differs from reality.

If a resident receives a voter card with the former resident's name on it, he cannot simply vote in that person's place because he needs to present another piece of identification. There is already a system in place to ensure that people do not defraud the system in this way.

Why does the minister want to impose a measure that will only make it harder for young voters to vote?

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

Mr. Speaker, first, young voters who are students can use their student card, for example.

Second, the voters list is used to generate the voter cards, and there are errors for one in six names on that list. Elections Canada maintains that list, not the government. Those are therefore Elections Canada's errors.

What is more, 39 other forms of identification are accepted. Elections Canada will be required to inform voters of these forms of identification.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is sad to see the attitude of the minister, who thinks he can remain comfortably ensconced in his office in Ottawa and still know everything about democracy and what Canadians want.

The people in the communities are not saying the same thing. Not one of my constituents is complaining about the work done by the Chief Electoral Officer.

Why is the minister refusing to get out of his Ottawa bubble to reform the democratic system of all Canadians? Why is he trying to muzzle the Chief Electoral Officer and take away his investigative powers?

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

Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats are the ones living in a bubble. They are the ones who believe that a person should be able to vote without any form of identification.

Canadians believe that, with 39 options for identification, it is reasonable to expect a person to present a document to prove who he is. There have already been 50,000 serious errors with these voting methods. We are going to eliminate that, and the NDP should support us.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, like so many things this government does, the unfair elections act was simply thrown together, and the only consultations the government did were with other Conservatives. This bill takes away the commissioner's direct signing authority at Elections Canada. Instead, the commissioner cannot hire experts without permission.

Did the minister consult with Elections Canada before forcing this change on them, or was he just hoping to sneak this through without anyone noticing?

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

Mr. Speaker, the measure to which the member refers is a standard measure that applies to numerous officers of Parliament already. It allows, at the same time, total independence for the way in which the Commissioner of Canada Elections carries out investigations. In fact, the fair elections act will give new independence to the commissioner. The commissioner will have total control over investigations, staff, and all of his future decisions, which he does not have right now.

Ethics

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has long feigned ignorance about the Senate scandal. Not only were we expected to believe that nonsense, but now we are also supposed to believe that when Nigel Wright and Mike Duffy met in the Prime Minister's private boardroom, he knew nothing, saw nothing and heard nothing.

Does the Prime Minister often sit, headphones on, staring at the ceiling and whistling while crimes are being committed in his private boardroom?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP report was very clear. It stated that the Prime Minister had no inkling of Mr. Wright and Mr. Duffy's plan. The Prime Minister also said that if he had known about the plan, he would have put an end to it immediately.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we asked the government what the Prime Minister knew about the two key meetings that took place in his so-called “private, high-security boardroom” regarding the Senate payoff and cover-up scandal.

The answer was—well, there was no answer, so let us try to go a little simpler.

When was the Prime Minister informed that there were meetings in his boardroom between the conspirators who are now under criminal investigation, or does the Prime Minister find it more convenient to not ever find out what actually happens in his high-security office?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I know it will not surprise you that I take the word of the RCMP when they say that the Prime Minister had no idea that the situation was occurring. The Prime Minister also said that had he known, he would have put an immediate stop to it.

Moreover, the report by the RCMP shows the lengths to which the Prime Minister went to assist the RCMP, including ensuring that his staff assisted and provided any information they needed. Thousands of emails were turned over. Waivers were signed. We are doing all that we can to assist the RCMP in this investigation, and we will continue to do that.

Privacy

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

Mr. Speaker, I will hand it to my colleague in showing us the extent that the Prime Minister will run to avoid accountability over the criminal acts that may have been committed in his own office.

Speaking of this, yesterday we found that the government used the Aga Khan's speech as a pretext to data mine information on Canadians for the Conservative Party. This was a momentous occasion for the Ismaili community, yet the Conservatives used this historic occasion to inappropriately gather data for the Conservative Party.

Could the government tell us if it really thinks it is appropriate to use a state visit by a religious leader to gather personal information for the use of the Conservative war machine?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, let me just say how proud and honoured I was to be in this chamber to hear the words of the Aga Khan last week, and to hear the affection and esteem in which he holds this country.

I know I was proud and I know that all members were proud. It really highlights not only the good work that the foundation does but also the extraordinary work that the Ismaili community has done to help build this country into the great place that it is. I am very proud of that, and I know all members of this chamber were too, at least they should be.

We will continue to advance initiatives that highlight how great Canada is on the world stage.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Aga Khan came to Canada to share a message of tolerance and openness that is strikingly similar to the NDP's “Working together” slogan.

Apparently, the message went way over the heads of the Conservatives. They put the Aga Khan's speech up on the Prime Minister's website, but in order to listen to it, people had to submit their email address. Where did all of those email addresses go? To the Conservative Party.

Do the Conservatives think that it is ethical to use diplomatic visits to add to their database, yes or no?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, I was very proud to hear the speech delivered by the Aga Khan in the House last week.

I would hope all members share that sense of pride we felt in hearing the Aga Khan, hearing his words and hearing the affection he has for this country. I was also proud that across this country so many people wanted to hear the words of the Aga Khan.

It also highlighted not only the good work of the Aga Khan and the foundation but also the extraordinary work of the Ismaili community in this country to help build a better, safer, stronger Canada, and we will continue to advance that both at home and abroad.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have made drastic cuts to public services such as employment insurance and Canada Post, they have made partisan changes to the Canada Elections Act, and they used a diplomatic visit to boost the Conservative Party's database. Let us not forget the Wright and Duffy scheme, which was orchestrated in the Prime Minister's very own boardroom.

Are the Conservatives trying to recreate the glory days of the Liberal sponsorship scandal? When will they stop governing for the Conservative Party and start governing for everyone?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, a million jobs created, $3,400 in the pockets of Canadian taxpayers, a justice system that is focusing on the rights of victims, massive amounts of re-investment in our Canadian Armed Forces—we are getting our natural resources to markets, we are opening up new markets for our small, medium and large job creators, and on and on.

It is this Conservative government that is transforming the way this country is seen, not only abroad but also here at home. Canadians are proud of that.

As well, we had an extraordinary showing at the Olympics, which I am very proud of. Canadians have every right to be proud of this country. We will continue to stand up for that and to make sure that all Canadians continue to be proud.

Government Advertising

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during the Oscars broadcast, the government ran partisan commercials that apparently cost over $100,000 each.

The government has already spent $113 million promoting its economic action plan, and many see that as wasteful spending. The Conservative government could have given more to the victims in Lac-Mégantic, for instance.

Why does the government continue to waste so much money on partisan ads, instead of helping Canadians in need?

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadians need to be informed of our major program to lower the unemployment rate and implement our economic action plan. We are very proud of this action plan, which will improve Canada's economic situation. That, of course, is our challenge, but we must not forget the results achieved by the government's economic programs.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, ruining Sunday's Oscars, the government ran economic action plan ads at an estimated cost of more than $100,000—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, order. The hon. member for St. Paul's still has the floor. Order, please.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, millions of Canadians have been devastated by disasters, including floods in Alberta and the ice storm in Ontario. Recovery is ongoing. When Canadians see these ads, they hear the flushing of dollars better spent on things that matter, including disaster relief.

Can the government justify spending millions of taxpayers' dollars on partisan advertising when so many are struggling to rebuild?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for her Oscar for feigned outrage. Well done. She should make sure her acceptance speech is not too long because then the music will start to build.

The hon. member should remember that when her party was in power, advertising dollars from the government actually did not go to advertising. They went into the pockets of all those miscreants. We advertise programs designed to help people and our economy, and we will continue to do so.