House of Commons Hansard #79 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was funding.
Chrystia Freeland Liberal Toronto Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have long benefited from the CPP, a cornerstone of our society. Yesterday Ontario recognized the growing need to strengthen Canadians' pensions, introducing a proposal that will—
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
Order, please. There will be an opportunity to respond to the question when the member has finished asking it, but not until then.
The hon. member for Toronto Centre has the floor.
Chrystia Freeland Liberal Toronto Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, if the members on the other side of the House would like to hear my big-girl voice, listen up, gentlemen.
Ontario showed leadership that has been lacking from the Conservative government. Will the Conservatives finally follow Ontario's lead and help all Canadians achieve financial security when they retire?
Andrew Saxton ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, Ontario families cannot afford to have more money taken out of their pockets, especially in this fragile global recovery. This tax hike on workers and businesses will disadvantage Ontario and kill jobs.
It is unfortunate that the Ontario Liberals refuse to follow our government's example of good economic management by making tough decisions, focusing on priorities, and balancing the budget.
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have seen a drastic reduction in their privacy rights under the Conservative government, which seems to view the warrantless disclosure of personal information as a good thing.
This week, we learned that government agencies ask telecom companies for Canadians' personal information over a million times per year, and mostly get it.
In a world where information is power, why are the Conservatives making Canadians powerless to protect their own personal information from snooping government agencies and corporations? Why?
Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows quite clearly that Canadians' personal information that is protected by the charter requires a warrant. Moreover, the legislation that governs this, of course, was introduced by the Liberal Party, and we had not heard a word from the Liberals until a couple of days ago that there were any problems with it.
Having said that, we did recognize that some updates needed to happen. That is why we brought a bill forward, Bill S-4, which will address this even further. We have been consulting, and we have spoken to the Privacy Commissioner. I would suggest that the opposition support that bill.
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, last night the Conservatives delivered its Bill C-23 punchline in the mockery they have made of Parliament and of the committee process.
New Democrats listened to experts. We went out and heard from ordinary Canadians. We came to the table in good faith with over 100 common-sense amendments that would improve the bill. Last night the Conservatives shut down the committee without even hearing half of them. It is a farce.
Will the minister accept some reasonable amendments at report stage, or will he trample ahead with the same arrogance that got him into this mess in the first place?
Pierre Poilievre ConservativeMinister of State (Democratic Reform)
Mr. Speaker, the NDP really does have to make up its mind. First, the New Democrats opposed the bill before reading a single word of it. Then, last Friday, they tried to take credit for the whole bill. Now, they are saying that the bill is the end of the world. They really have to make up their minds.
The policy disagreement here is well known to Canadians. The New Democrats believe that people should be allowed to vote without any ID whatsoever. In fact, they brought forward an amendment that would allow people to walk in without presenting any ID and vote by having someone vouch for who they are. We are ending identity vouching. We are requiring that people bring ID in order to identify who they are before they vote.
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, they went from ID vouching to address vouching. Who are you kidding? Supposedly, the whole reason for changing—
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
Order, please. I can assure the hon. member I am not trying to kid anybody. I will remind him to address his comments through the Chair and not directly at other colleagues so as to avoid that kind of confusion.
The hon. member for Hamilton Centre.
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, supposedly the whole reason for changing the Elections Act was to put an end to fraudulent robocalls. However, investigators testified the bill would not give them the powers they need. The bill would make them less independent and leave them so hamstrung that they say they would have to abandon investigations.
We had amendments to fix the problem, but the Conservatives did not even hear them and they shut down the committee before we even got that far. Will the minister now consider these reasonable amendments?
Pierre Poilievre ConservativeMinister of State (Democratic Reform)
Mr. Speaker, of course we have made the Commissioner of Canada Elections independent from Elections Canada. This is an enormous improvement, and it will allow investigations to happen in a fashion that is independent and directed by the person who is in charge of them; that is, the commissioner.
However, that is a distraction for the New Democrats. They do not want Canadians to be aware that they attempted to amend the bill to allow people to vote without any ID whatsoever, and that is the core disagreement. The NDP wants people to vote with no ID whatsoever. We believe people should present ID to show who they are.
Alexandrine Latendresse NDP Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Mr. Speaker, the NDP worked in good faith and proposed amendments to address the concerns of hundreds of experts, including the Chief Electoral Officer. Yesterday, the Conservatives ended the debate when only one-fifth of the bill had been studied by the committee members. Using sheer force of numbers to end the debate on legislation that frames our democracy is simply shameful. Now that the electoral “deform” is back in the House, will the government finally put partisanship aside and agree to debate the bill with the opposition?
Pierre Poilievre ConservativeMinister of State (Democratic Reform)
Mr. Speaker, we will always agree to debate the bill with the opposition because we are winning the debate. We want to make it mandatory for people to show ID when they vote. The vast majority of Canadians agree with that proposal. Some 87% of Canadians think voters should show ID. The NDP thinks that Canadians should vote without any ID. We disagree.
Alexandrine Latendresse NDP Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Mr. Speaker, the truth is that in committee, the Conservatives rejected any change that would have truly improved their botched bill. They voted against the amendments that would have forced call centres to hand over to the CRTC the telephone numbers contacted and the transcripts of the calls. They voted against the amendments to limit the influence of money on political parties and to give Elections Canada real investigative powers. It is ridiculous.
With Bill C-23, the Elections Act is going to be worse than it is now. Why is the government forcing legislation down our throats that will set us back many years?
Pierre Poilievre ConservativeMinister of State (Democratic Reform)
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have heard the NDP's arguments and have overwhelmingly rejected the NDP on this. Some 87% of Canadians believe that voters should show ID. The NDP is saying that people should be able to show up without any ID and have someone vouch for their identity. We disagree, and the fair elections act will require people to show ID when they vote.
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Mr. Speaker, the crisis in Ukraine continues to concern us. Canada has taken a leadership role. In coordination with our allies, our government has imposed sanctions and travel bans on those responsible for the instability in Ukraine.
We also have a role to play in ensuring global energy security. Can the Minister of Natural Resources update this House on what action our government has taken on this important file?
Greg Rickford ConservativeMinister of Natural Resources and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario
Mr. Speaker, the ongoing crisis in the Ukraine is not acceptable. As a G7 country with an abundance of energy supply, we have a responsibility to work with our allies to help meet the pressing issue of global energy security. That is why next week I will be participating in a special G7 meeting where I will highlight the importance of expanding energy infrastructure and strengthening global energy security and supply.
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister thinks that since the Champlain Bridge is not an international or interprovincial structure, Montreal motorists should pay.
As far as I know, the existing federal bridge is not an international bridge or an interprovincial bridge and there is no toll. The same goes for the federal Jacques-Cartier and Mercier bridges, which do not cross any borders.
Unless the government plans on profiting from the work to move the Champlain Bridge, why is it claiming that because the bridge is local, those who use it daily should have to foot the bill?
Jacques Gourde ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the existing bridge is not an interprovincial or international bridge. However, we acknowledge that it is important to the region. That is why we are building a new bridge over the St. Lawrence River. We have always been clear. This new bridge will be built through a public-private partnership, with a toll. We are doing everything we can to ensure that this bridge is built as quickly as possible.
Tarik Brahmi NDP Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, the heart of the problem is that the federal government has a bridge and the Liberals and Conservatives neglected it so much that it now needs to be replaced. Instead of forcing Montreal-area motorists to foot the bill for 50 years of neglect, the government should take responsibility.
Does the minister realize that the entire Quebec and Canadian economies will suffer because his government stubbornly wants to impose a toll on the new Champlain Bridge?
Jacques Gourde ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
Mr. Speaker, as I said before, we will build a new bridge over the St. Lawrence River. It will be a toll bridge, and this will be excellent news for the country's economy.
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, at yesterday's finance committee meeting, we asked officials from that department how much it will cost Canadians to implement the Canada-U.S. agreement on foreign accounts. They estimate it will cost up to several hundred million dollars, but they do not know exactly how much.
We do know, however, that the agreement will have a huge impact on the private lives of millions of Canadians. The Conservatives want to have this adopted as quickly as possible.
Why is this government in such a hurry to provide Canadians' personal information to the Internal Revenue Service?
Andrew Saxton ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, without an agreement in place, our financial institutions would still have to comply with FATCA. This would have required banks to report information directly to the IRS, and deny basic banking services to clients. Furthermore, both banks and their clients would have been subject to a 30% withholding tax. With an agreement in place, this will not happen.