Debates of April 1st, 2014

Health

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the health accord between Prime Minister Martin and the premiers ended. The government's abandonment of the accord and the Prime Minister's refusal to meet with premiers for eight years was a blow to medicare. Today a new health formula imposed on provinces is another blow. It abandons the principles of equalization, so small provinces cannot provide the same care as others.

Yesterday I asked the health minister to prevent this disaster and return the concept of equalization to the formula. She did not answer that question. Will she do so now?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, our government has committed to health care in Canada by providing long-term sustainable health care funding—in fact, the highest recorded health transfer dollars in Canadian history—to the provinces and territories. We have increased transfers by almost 50% since we became government.

As I have said repeatedly, and Brad Wall said the same thing yesterday, this cannot just be about money. We have to work together with the provinces and territories on sustainability and innovation, and to that end, I have been working with my provincial and territorial partners. We are working together on a health innovation framework, and I am sure we will do a lot together on sustainability.

Democratic Reform

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the list of experts coming forward to oppose the Conservatives' unfair changes to the Elections Act is growing daily. First there was Marc Mayrand, the current Chief Electoral Officer; then Jean-Pierre Kingsley, the former chief electoral officer; then Harry Neufeld, author of the report misleadingly cited by the minister; then Paul Thomas, professor and expert on Canadian elections.

Given the almost unanimous condemnation of this seriously flawed bill, will the minister now listen to the experts and agree to fix this bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a terrific bill, and Canadians support its elements. It would create a new registry, requiring that those making mass calls register them so that authorities can surveil them and make sure that they are lawful and accurate. It would create new penalties for those who impersonate other parties or who impersonate Elections Canada officials. It would close loopholes to big money, such as the loans loophole that the Liberals used or the donations that the NDP received through wills and testaments. Finally and proudly, it would require people to show some ID when they vote, which average Canadians think is very reasonable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know which world the Minister of State for Democratic Reform is living in, but it is clearly not the same one as most Canadians.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to hear professor Paul Thomas express his views on Bill C-23. He emphasized the fact that other countries that conduct free elections recognize that election laws must not be changed unilaterally, without consultation. As well as being dangerous for our democracy, the Conservatives' electoral deform bill will undermine the legitimacy of the electoral process. It will not help the Conservative government earn the trust of voters.

Will the minister listen to the experts at last?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Fair Elections Act is very reasonable. It creates a new registry to oversee the robocalls and telemarketing calls that many Canadians receive, as well as to protect the legitimacy of those calls. The bill creates new penalties to punish those who mislead voters with fraudulent calls. It also guarantees that the legislation limiting donations will be obeyed. Yes, the Fair Elections Act will require people to present a piece of ID when they vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, it would be good for the minister to start listening to the experts.

Twenty years ago, Canada was a major player on the international stage in terms of sharing best practices in order to strengthen institutions in countries in democratic transition.

Today, our own institutions are threatened. When we have reached the point at which international experts begin expressing concern about the Conservatives' electoral deform bill, we can see how far we have fallen. If we add to that the fact that the government is giving itself almost unlimited spending power when it comes to contacting some former contributors, we can see that our democratic system really is in danger.

Why are the Conservatives trying to get around the upper limit on spending?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is the New Democrats who have been trying to get around the legislation on political party financing. First, they tried to receive money from unions, but they had to pay it back. Second, they were getting money from people who had died. Third, they opposed our efforts to limit expenses and donations.

The measure that the hon. member is referring to is restricted to people who have given money in the past five years. It cannot be used for advertisements or other methods of contact. It is a very reasonable measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, on another unfair elections act front, today in committee my questioning of CRTC lawyers confirmed my suspicions of a huge loophole in Bill C-23's voter contact registry scheme, which was supposed to prevent fraudulent calling to voters. Live calls by a party's internal services are not covered, so Conservative Party phone banks can live-call Canadians during elections with no oversight.

My question is to the minister. Is this massive omission deliberate?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is not an omission, and yes, it is deliberate. Let me tell the House why.

What the member is talking about are the regular calls that are made by volunteers out of local campaign offices every single day. An example would be a small lawn sign committee that puts out signs. A volunteer in the office, usually a senior, makes about five or 10 calls to arrange to put out lawn signs. The member across the way thinks that the volunteer should fill out a bunch of forms with a national telecommunications registry.

How are we expected to encourage people to get involved in democracy when we bury them in that kind of—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Mississauga South.

Canadian Heritage

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the evils of Communism defiled much of the 20th century, killing over 100 million worldwide and wreaking misery on countless more. The impact is felt today not only in the shadows of current and former totalitarian regimes but by the eight million Canadians who trace their roots to countries that lived under Communist regimes.

Could the Minister for Multiculturalism update the House on the status of the monument to the victims of Communism here in Ottawa?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism]

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right. From the killing fields of Cambodia to the victims of Stalin's gulag to the victims of the Holodomor famine genocide and Mao's great leap forward, over one hundred million people were killed under Communist regimes in the past century, and that continues in the world's largest concentration camp, for example, in North Korea.

That is why, on behalf of the eight million Canadians who are descendants of countries that lived through Communist terror, we are erecting a national monument for the victims of Communism. Today we are launching the artistic competition for the monument.

We would like to thank all of those thousands of individual charitable contributors who are building this sacred place of common memory.

Justice

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, talking about evil, the Conservatives are once again using a budget bill to try to sneak in changes that have nothing to do with the budget, but that have serious consequences.

On page 262, it says that administrative tribunals, such as the Human Rights Tribunal, will now have to be accountable to the Minister of Justice, through the new Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada.

How can the Minister of Finance justify this so-called budget measure that may well affect the independence and autonomy of those tribunals?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, administrative tribunals are arm's-length organizations. This measure is very much designed to respect the judiciary and to respect their ability to continue to provide service, while at the same time bringing them together for the sake of saving taxpayers' money. I know the NDP is a bit foreign to embracing this idea. I know this is something it is not quick to acknowledge.

The reality is this is a cost-saving measure that continues to respect the administrative independence of the courts. That is exactly why we have included it in the budget bill.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for cost savings, yes, but the tribunals must also remain autonomous and independent of government. They include bodies like the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, the Social Security Tribunal, the Specific Claims Tribunal, and the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board. However, Conservatives are using their monster budget bill to reduce the tribunals' control and hand it to a new chief administrator named by the Conservative cabinet.

Why is the minister reducing the independence of these tribunals and grabbing more power and control for the Conservative cabinet?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as I just said, we are not doing that. We are in fact respecting the independence of the organization. At the same time, we are making administrative changes that bring these organizations together for efficiencies, for the purposes of saving taxpayers' money.

Again, God forbid that we take the responsible step to try to save taxpayers' money, while at the same time allowing them to continue in the tradition of independence and in the tradition of supporting the judiciary and other organizations in a manner that causes an effective result for taxpayers and all Canadians.

Rail Transportation

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the budget implementation bill also deals with railway safety.

The Conservatives have given themselves the power to amend safety rules without notifying the public. The three months' notice will now go down to one month. That is not nearly enough. Experts will no longer have enough time to provide their opinion. We need stricter railway safety rules, not looser ones.

Will the Minister of Transport ask that those dangerous provisions be removed from the omnibus bill?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth.

This government believes very firmly in protecting the safety and the security of its citizens. As a result, we want to ensure that we are lining up appropriately with the United States in how regulatory matters progress.

That is simply the answer in this matter. It is making sure that we are doing exactly the same things on a quick basis in order to protect the country and in order to ensure that we have the best regulations in place. It is quite the contrary to what that member is indicated.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, well, the Conservatives are doing nothing to address the concerns of Canadians.

That is why parents in Beauport—Limoilou were forced to form a watchdog group called Vigilance ferroviaire Limoilou to make up for the government's inaction.

They are concerned about the train traffic by their children's school, and I do not blame them. They do not understand why carriers have no obligation to disclose the contents of their cars, and neither do I.

What does the minister intend to do in practical terms to reassure the parents in Limoilou?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the government has done several things in this area. Most notably, two months ago we introduced new regulations for grade crossings to ensure that there is a communication and an understanding between municipalities and railroads about the appropriate way to ensure that types of traffic are separated from one another.

Second, we also provide funding for municipalities to ensure that they can upgrade their rail crossings to protect the children around the area.

Third, we fund Operation Lifesaver to make sure we communicate and educate kids about being around rail lines.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in Bill C-30, the government seeks to regulate contracts between farmers and grain companies, but it is not clear what kind of regulation. They should in fact table the draft regulations.

One problem is the so-called basis calculation, meaning how grain companies discount world prices to set the actual Prairie price paid to farmers. Farmers call this deduction “tookage”, and it has never been bigger than it is today.

Would Bill C-30 force transparency and put some limits on this grain company cash grab that is gobbling up about half of the farmers' price?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Wascana has pointed out a portion of the new legislative package, Bill C-30, and the regulatory capacity under that. As he well knows, witnesses will be there all this week at the SCAAF committee, talking about this very issue.

What we have in mind is for the ability of farmers to have some reciprocity when a contract is issued by a grain company, so they actually have some power to push back. Right now, there is only buyer's preference. We would like to see something from the farmers' perspective that would give them some leverage as well.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the impact of the grain transportation and supply chain crisis goes far beyond the lack of grain cars. Lost sales are leaving many producers without funds to pay their bills or put in a crop this spring, yet the government cut AgriStability in half and it slashed access even more. Further, the government cut the AgriInvest contributions from the government, which seriously undermines the economic safety net for producers.

Will the government reconsider its lack of support for farm safety nets and income protection for the farm community?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member's lack of knowledge about the agricultural safety nets probably underscores why he was moved from that particular station.

At the end of the day, farmers have access to far more. They have increased value in their crop insurance. They now have livestock price insurance available to them. A number of things have come forward that are much more usable, bankable, and predictable than AgriStability or AgriInvest ever were.

We continue to build a solid business risk safety net system for farmers.