Debates of April 28th, 2014

Democratic Reform

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

Mr. Speaker, the Competition Bureau has this power, but the government does not want to give it to those who investigate electoral fraud. That is really problematic.

The Conservatives were found guilty of using an in and out scheme to cheat in the 2006 election.

They also cheated in the 2008 election and they are still awaiting trial.

In 2011, fraudulent calls were made with information from the Conservative Party database. The Conservatives tried to stack the deck for the next election before abandoning the move. It is therefore understandable that people are suspicious of the Conservatives' amendments to Bill C-23.

Why are the Conservatives refusing to give Elections Canada the power to compel witnesses to testify and to compel the parties to produce documents justifying their election expenses?

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

Mr. Speaker, when the media reported on the robocall allegations, I was proud to stand up for the Conservative Party. I was convinced that we were right and that the Conservative Party had won the election in a fair and honest manner. I am very pleased that the results of the investigation show that we were correct in saying that the Conservative Party won the election.

Now, the time has come for the NDP to stand up and do the honourable thing. They need to apologize for making those allegations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member was proud when the court found that fraudulent calls were made with information from the Conservative Party database.

Four hundred and sixty academics, two Nobel Prize winners and 18 past presidents of the Canadian Political Science Association have all strongly criticized the Conservatives' electoral “deform”. Like us, they are calling for extensive consultation with Canadians and are particularly critical of the fact that Bill C-23 does not give Elections Canada the power to compel witnesses to testify or to compel the parties to produce documentation justifying their election expenses.

Will the Prime Minister acknowledge these comments and make more amendments to Bill C-23 or will he, as Tom Flanagan said, continue to show his vindictiveness toward Elections Canada, which has so often taken the Conservatives—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. Minister of State for Democratic Reform.

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

Mr. Speaker, we brought forward a common-sense bill, and we have agreed to some reasonable amendments. With the adoption of this amended version of the bill, we will eliminate the use of the voter information card as a form of ID. We will require Elections Canada to focus all of its advertising on where, when, and how to vote so that Canadians have that basic information. We will make the investigator independent from Elections Canada. Unlike in the last election, we will ensure that every single Canadian is required to bring ID when they cast their ballot. These are improvements, and we are proud of the bill.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been telling us they are deeply concerned about the flawed and unfair changes to the Elections Act, but time and time again, the minister insulted or targeted all those who criticized him and stubbornly boasted that his bill was perfect and terrific just as it was. Then suddenly, last week, he claimed he would now agree to some major changes.

Will the minister now admit, at the very least, that the Chief Electoral Officer, elections experts, and the opposition were right about his biased bill, or does he still think his bill is terrific and perfect?

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

Mr. Speaker, we brought forward a common-sense bill, and we have accepted some reasonable amendments to it.

A question for the NDP now. It put forward an amendment on the bill that would allow people to vote without having any ID whatsoever. I want to invite the member to rise in his seat now and indicate if he still believes that voters should be able to walk in without a shred of ID and cast a ballot. I would like him to indicate that right now.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Hamilton Centre.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. The members have not even given the member for Hamilton Centre a chance to put his question.

The hon. member for Hamilton Centre has the floor.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, common sense would have been to talk to somebody other than those who have Conservative membership cards about the bill before they even brought it to the House.

The bill was supposed to help Elections Canada better investigate voter suppression, so why does the bill still fail to put into law the duty to compel witnesses or the power to demand documents from political parties? Why is the member refusing to take strong action like that against voter suppression?

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

Mr. Speaker, the elections commissioner, who is responsible for investigating, already has the power to have documents produced. He simply has to go to a judge and seek permission through an affidavit. It is a power he has used regularly, and the reason we did not give it to him in this bill is that he already had it.

Senate

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, now that the Prime Minister understands that he cannot unilaterally change the nature of the Senate, will he let the Senate fulfill the constitutional role that the Supreme Court has once again acknowledged it has, which is to be a chamber of sober second thought? Will he follow the Liberal leader's example and cut ties between Conservative senators and the party caucus, the Prime Minister's Office and the Prime Minister himself so that Canadians can have a less partisan and more independent Senate?

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

Mr. Speaker, the problem with the Liberal leader's proposal is that he not only wants unelected senators, but he wants the people who appoint senators to be unelected as well. He wants a committee made up of people who have not been chosen by Canadians. That is two steps away from democracy instead of just one. We will work to minimize the costs associated with the Senate and maximize its responsibility at the same time.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, following the Supreme Court's unanimous decision to rebuke the Conservative's unconstitutional plan to unilaterally reform the Senate, the current government appears to have given up on reforming the Senate entirely.

As Conservative Senator Segal said, “...there are still changes that could be made that do not...require a constitutional amendment”. For example, he said, “There could be a new approach to how you appoint on a consultative basis”.

Will the government embrace this non-partisan, consultative approach when filling the current vacancies, or will it be business as usual?

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

Mr. Speaker, the first part of the Liberal proposal is to change Liberal senators into Senate Liberals. The second proposal that the leader has come up with is to put in place a group of non-elected elites to choose who should represent Canadians in the Senate. That would mean that not only would the Senate be one step removed from democracy, it would be two steps removed from democracy. That is the Triple-E Senate: for the elites, by the elites, of the elites.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister might be more credible if the Conservatives were not the only party exercising partisan control over senators, or if Conservative senators Tkachuk, LeBreton, and Stewart Olsen had not doctored a report into Mike Duffy's expenses at the PM's behest, or better still, if he had not appointed senators Duffy, Wallin, and Brazeau in the first place—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I am having a difficult time hearing the member for Guelph, which normally is not a problem. The noise here is preventing me from listening to his question. I will ask members to come to order.

The hon. member for Guelph has the floor.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, eight years of bad judgment and zero reforms. What is it going to be: the status quo or the real, immediate, and transparent reform Liberals have already made?

Cut them loose Prime Minister, and make them independent.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I did not hear a question there, but I see the hon. minister rising to respond.

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

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question in any of that, but I was lucky enough to be invited to be an observer at the recent Liberal convention. What did I see? Everywhere I turned was another Senate Liberal, and they had undergone a major change. Of course, a week earlier, they had been called Liberal senators, but then they flipped it on its head, and they became Senate Liberals. They were raising money and helping out with the Liberal convention.

The reality is that the Liberal Party is proposing only to make the Senate even less democratic by putting not only the senators unelected but making those who choose them unelected as well. We will not go down that road.

Employment

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks back, I asked the minister if he planned to ensure greater oversight of the temporary foreign workers program in the oil sands.

Canadian iron workers have been laid off and replaced by temporary foreign workers. The minister claimed that every single laid-off Canadian was immediately re-employed, but according to the iron workers, that is not true. They have asked the minister to step up oversight and enforcement. He said he would “throw the book...at non-compliant employers”.

So what action has the minister taken against Husky or Imperial Oil?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is an ongoing investigation into those particular allegations. I know this is a peculiar concept for the NDP, but under natural justice, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. We do not sanction anyone unless and until there is a fair process to determine that they have violated the rules.

If they have violated the rules, they would be blacklisted and unable to use the program in the future. If employers lie on their applications to bring in temporary foreign workers, they may commit fraud, which is a criminal offence under the immigration act, punishable with up to five years in jail or $100,000 in fines.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, time and time again the Conservative government promises to fix the temporary foreign worker program, but time and time again it fails to get the job done.

Canadian employees are having shifts taken away. They are being fired or they are not hired altogether. At the same time, we hear of shocking abuse of the temporary foreign workers brought in.

When will the Conservatives admit they have mismanaged this program, and agree to an independent audit?