Debates of March 6th, 2014

Infrastructure

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Minister of Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, our government has nearly tripled average annual infrastructure investments since 2006.

The economic action plan 2013 announced $70 billion over 10 years, a decade. We have to look at all 10 years, including the $53 billion for provincial, territorial, and municipal infrastructure.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, just to be clear, Conservative cuts to building Canada funding are laid out in painful detail in its own 2013 budget plan at page 178, table 3.3.1. It is there in black and white for everybody to see.

Building Canada is chopped by 87%, starting on April 1, just 25 days from now. Municipalities get dinged this coming year and the year after that, and every year until 2019.

Here is the question. Is table 3.3.1 true, or is the budget plan a lie? Canadian municipalities need to know.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Minister of Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, he has to look at the 10-year plan. It is a 10-year plan.

We have indexed the gas tax fund. We have doubled it. That is now permanent in the law; 71% of this plan is going straight to the municipalities of the country, and FCM is supporting that plan.

Democratic Reform

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

Mr. Speaker, in committee today, the Chief Electoral Officer, Marc Mayrand, pointed out that political parties are reimbursed $33 million after each election, without providing a single receipt or piece of documentation.

The electoral deform bill is not a game-changer for political parties, but it will treat each and every voter as a potential cheat.

Why has the government introduced a bill that does not express any trust in voters, but shows complete trust in political parties?

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

Mr. Speaker, we will be adding mandatory auditing of every cent of election expense money that parties are hoping to have reimbursed. That auditing process is new.

In addition, according to section 435, the Chief Electoral Officer can choose to ask for more information before reimbursing parties with taxpayers' money. He already has that authority and can exercise it.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we called for in a motion that was unanimously adopted in the House two years ago, and it is still not in the bill.

Mr. Mayrand also explained to the committee members that there is not a single democracy in the world whose elections agency has had restrictions imposed on it by the government in power regarding the information it can share with the public, including information about electoral fraud.

Can the minister name another democracy that muzzles its head of elections in this way?

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

Mr. Speaker, there are none, and our Chief Electoral Officer will not be muzzled either. He will still be able to talk about democracy in Canada.

However, she refers to a motion in the House of Commons in which we voted for Elections Canada's powers, and it said we would support giving him the power to request all necessary documents from political parties to ensure compliance with the Elections Act. He already has that power.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Marc Mayrand has joined a chorus of other experts and a growing number of Canadians who are simply not buying the minister's weak explanation for his radical rewriting of the Elections Act.

Mr. Mayrand critiqued the bizarre distinction the Conservatives are trying to make between voter fraud and voter participation.

How can the minister possibly disagree with the Chief Electoral Officer when he says, “...the main challenge for our electoral democracy is not voter fraud, but voter participation”?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will simply read Elections Canada's own report, which says of irregularities related to vouching and procedures like it that, “The courts refer to such serious errors as ‘irregularities’ which can result in votes being declared invalid”.

There were 50,000 such irregularities in the last election related to vouching, according to Elections Canada's own report.

If the NDP wants to take its message that people should be able to vote without any form of identification, that is fine. We on this side of the House of Commons will protect the integrity of the system.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is about our elections, the cornerstone of our democracy, and all we get from the minister is weak and misleading excuses.

The Chief Electoral Officer said people are increasingly refusing to co-operate with Elections Canada's investigations. Since most of these are about Conservative wrongdoing, can the minister tell us if he will now agree to give Elections Canada the power to compel testimony?

Before he claims that these are extraordinary powers, we are only asking for the same powers the Competition Bureau already has.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner of Canada Elections already has all of the investigative powers of a police force, which could investigate violent crime, for example.

We will ensure that he keeps all of those powers. In fact, the fair elections act gives him sharper teeth and a longer reach. That includes tougher penalties for existing offences and more offences that will allow him to protect the system and protect our democracy.

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

Mr. Speaker, at committee today, Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand pointed to serious discrepancies in the Elections Act around expenses for leadership candidates.

He emphasized the urgent need to amend the act to include many excluded expenses, as well as non-monetary contributions, within spending limits.

Does the minister agree with the Chief Electoral Officer that these new loan provisions in the unfair elections act need to be amended in order to be effective; and will the minister acknowledge that this is one of the many major problems in his bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, if there is an exclusion that he wants to revisit, like when the NDP excluded all fundraising expenses from its spending limits, for example, first he should contact his party, which makes its own rules for leadership races. Second, I invite him to bring forward any amendments.

However, the fair elections act will close the loans loophole that allowed the Liberal Party to take hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal donations simply by calling it unrepaid debt.

That is a step in the right direction. That is the fair elections act.

Ethics

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

Mr. Speaker, new RCMP documents show the extent of illegal lobbying that was carried on by the Prime Minister's former chief adviser Bruce Carson, along with the help of people like Dan Gagnier, the adviser to the Liberal leader.

He illegally lobbied numerous Conservative cabinet ministers. None of them blew the whistle on him. He lobbied the Clerk of the Privy Council and even the Prime Minister's good friend Nigel Wright.

Will the Prime Minister tell us: When was he informed about this illegal lobbying that was happening among his ministers, his public servants, and his staff?

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

Mr. Speaker, of course these allegations relate to the actions of a private citizen who obviously did not get a government contract. As soon as the government found out about these allegations we referred them to the Lobbying Commissioner and the Ethics Commissioner, and we informed the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Again, like any Canadian, if this gentleman is found to have broken any laws, he should suffer under the full consequences of the law.

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

Mr. Speaker, this so-called private citizen is a convicted fraud artist who was personally appointed by the Prime Minister to be his chief insider. He was such an insider that the Conservatives called him “the secret sauce”. This is what the sauce was. He was using his plum position to benefit his bottom line by setting up deals that took advantage of first nations.

Why did the Prime Minister appoint a convicted fraud artist to a plum position and then allow him to continue on lobbying right under his nose and not take any steps for the Privy Council or for his chief of staff?

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

Mr. Speaker, these allegations are concerning a private citizen.

At the same time, this allows me to highlight the fact that it was this government that brought forward a Lobbying Commissioner and an Ethics Commissioner and that strengthened the laws to ensure that people do not take advantage of their positions.

As soon as the government found out, it referred this to the RCMP. If this gentleman or any person found in contravention of the law is found guilty then they should suffer under the full consequences of the law that, by and large, this government has brought in.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind members that Bruce Carson was one of the Prime Minister's key advisors. He is best known for devising a scheme for making money on the backs of first nations.

Doug Black, who was appointed to the Senate by this Prime Minister, called his illegal lobbying the “secret sauce”. As a public office-holder, Bruce Carson was not allowed to engage in lobbying activities.

The question is simple. Is the Prime Minister aware of Bruce Carson's illegal lobbying of Daniel Gagnier of the Energy Policy Institute of Canada, who is also the next co-chair of the 2015 election campaign?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for this question. These are major allegations against a private citizen.

At the same time, I would like to point out the good work that this government is doing to guarantee the highest ethical standards. I am referring to the work of the Ethics Commissioner and the Commissioner of Lobbying. When the government heard these allegations, it immediately notified the RCMP.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, we have just heard a new story that Nigel Wright hid things from the Prime Minister. We are starting to see a pattern here.

It is hard to believe that Nigel Wright forgot to tell his boss that the man working for him, who advised him and was part of his transition team, had just happened to stop by the office. However, he never said that.

It seems as though a lot of ministers in the current government, including the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, have tried the so-called secret sauce. It is fantastic.

Why does the Prime Minister always surround himself with people who break the law?

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

Mr. Speaker, of course the member's assertions are absolutely, completely ridiculous.

On this side of the House we surround ourselves with people who put the interests of this country first, who work day in and day out to make this country bigger, better, stronger, and to create jobs, unlike the opposition. The Leader of the Opposition surrounds himself with people who would want to break apart the country and then allows them the opportunity to get up in this House day after day and ask questions of a government, while at the same time he is making cheques to the separatist cause in Quebec.

We on this side of the House will stand up for Canada, will stand up for taxpayers, and will continue to build a bigger, better, stronger, unified Canada.

Democratic Reform

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

Mr. Speaker, today at committee the Chief Electoral Officer confirmed the unfair elections act is an attack on Elections Canada's ability to enforce the law. He said, “Without a power to compel testimony...the Commissioner's ability to carry out his investigations will remain limited”. The Conservatives do not want to give him the power to compel because they are afraid it may reveal the source of fraudulent elections calls.

When will the Conservatives admit that this bill was designed to protect the Conservatives responsible for election fraud?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner of Canada Elections already has the same investigative powers as a police force. He can use those powers right now. In fact, those powers are increased by the fair elections act, which gives him sharper teeth and a longer reach, including making it an offence for anyone to obstruct his investigation or give him false information. It also creates tougher penalties for existing offences.

That is what Canadians have asked for. That is what the fair elections act delivers.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today, in committee, the Chief Electoral Officer confirmed that the Conservatives' electoral reform bill reduces Elections Canada's ability to fully enforce the act. Mr. Mayrand said that without the power to compel testimony, the commissioner's ability to carry out his investigations will remain limited.

The Conservatives do not want to grant that power, for fear that we would find out the source of the fraudulent election calls.

When will the Conservatives stop protecting those responsible for election fraud?

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

Mr. Speaker, the commissioner already has the same investigative powers as a police officer. Furthermore, the fair elections act will increase the commissioner's powers by making him independent and allowing him to impose harsher penalties for offences committed, while Canadians who participate in elections will have to abide by more laws.

This bill will help protect our democracy. I would appreciate the Liberals' support.