Debates of Feb. 20th, 2015

Taxation

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while the New Democrats want to impose a job-killing carbon tax and the Liberal leader encourages his provincial comrades to do the same, the Conservative government is delivering the largest tax break in Canadian history.

Under this plan, 100% of families with children would have more money in their pockets to spend on their priorities as a family. In my riding of London North Centre, families are excited about this. Through all the new tax breaks, the average benefit to each of these families would be more than $1,100.

We assured Canadians that we would lower taxes and put more of their hard-earned money back in their pockets. That is exactly what we are doing and what we will continue to do.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives surprised many when they sent out a fundraising email saying that they oppose the wearing of a hijab at a citizenship ceremony.

It is bad enough that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is waging a war against Muslim women who cover their faces, but it is beyond belief that he is mixing up the terms hijab, niqab and burka for the sole purpose of confusing people and instilling fear.

He could have simply said that he had used the wrong term, but no, he chose to say that the hijab is not allowed, even though the hijab is allowed at citizenship ceremonies. He would rather create more division and fear for political gain.

The Conservatives are doing the same with Bill C-51. They are taking advantage of current circumstances to mislead the public by claiming that Bill C-51 does not give law enforcement agencies more powers.

Canadians deserve better. Canadians deserve leaders who tell the truth and do not exploit divisions for political gain.

Taxation

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, thanks to our new family tax cut and enhanced universal child care benefit, 100% of families with children will be better off. The average family with children in Canada will now receive just under $2,000 per child.

The difference between our priorities and those of the opposition are very clear: while we are giving back to Canadian families, the opposition would take money away from families. While we are cutting taxes, the Liberal leader would raise taxes. While our plan helps out 100% of Canadian families with kids, the NDP plan would help only 10% of families. Our family tax cut and enhanced universal child care benefit will help every family in Canada with children. That is over four million families.

Only this Conservative government can be trusted to put more money back into the pockets of each and every family with children in Canada.

Public Safety

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, five former Supreme Court justices, seven former federal ministers and four former prime ministers, including one Conservative, are all worried about the harm that Bill C-51 could cause.

This bill could undermine public safety and human rights. It does not provide for an effective oversight mechanism for CSIS.

Why are the minister and the Liberal leader not heeding this wise advice?

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

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that there is in fact oversight.

There is already oversight with SIRC. This bill is also very cognizant of the fact that judicial oversight is necessary for acting upon some of the intelligence that will be gathered by our security agencies. There is oversight with respect to the bill itself as it makes its way through the parliamentary process. There will be expert evidence heard, I am sure, at committee.

We look forward to the further participation in this important debate aimed specifically at addressing security needs in our country in this elevated environment.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the minister should listen to the advice of these former prime ministers and Supreme Court justices, because they warn that “...experience has shown that serious human rights abuses can occur in the name of maintaining national security”. They recognize that our current oversight regime is wholly inadequate. In fact, our oversight is so lacking that it is uniting former Liberal and Conservative prime ministers.

Why are Conservatives turning a deaf ear to such reasonable concerns?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the one individual the member is referencing kind of united with himself a long time ago.

Oversight with respect to judges is something that I think all members present would be quick to embrace. The fact is that these powers, extraordinary though they might be, are necessary in the current threat environment. The judicial oversight that comes at the front end of the process, as opposed to political oversight after the fact, which is what is being suggested by the members opposite, we think is preferable.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in short, the minister is dismissing reasonable concerns for no reason at all.

No one should face profiling or live under a cloud of suspicion because of their faith, yet the Prime Minister and the Conservatives have repeatedly targeted Muslims. They are creating anger and are feeding division. In contrast, American President Barack Obama is reaching out to Muslims. He is looking to them as partners in the fight against radicalization.

Will the Prime Minister apologize for his offensive comments toward Muslim Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is so completely untrue and completely offensive and completely far off base when it comes to what we are attempting to do as a government through this legislation, to enhance safety, protection, and security for all Canadians.

Security does not discriminate. We are attempting to elevate the security of our country from a very real and evolving threat. The member opposite decides, throughout this debate, to somehow scare people about what the security forces are doing rather than what the terrorists are posing as a threat to our country.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we learned this morning that the Conservatives' blind cuts and their misplaced priorities are hindering the fight against child pornography.

Although the number of sordid cases is increasing, the Conservatives tried to save $10 million at the expense of victims. Every year, 40,000 complaints are filed, but the RCMP does not have the resources it needs to investigate all these cases.

Why did the minister appropriate $10 million allocated to the fight against sexual predators and child pornography?

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely false. That member should not let the CBC do the research for her.

Let me be clear, no funding for the protection of children from sexual predators has been cut. The RCMP did not spend the full budget allocated to the National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre due to human resource challenges stemming from the nature of work, and I think members can imagine the nature of the work involved here, and high qualification standards.

That member's remark was absolutely false.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, child pornography investigations are not the only thing suffering as a result of the Conservatives' surreptitious cuts.

According to a new report, for the past eight years, 20% of the funding allocated to the RCMP has been returned to the consolidated revenue fund. The RCMP commissioner admitted that those cuts are affecting the fight against organized crime in particular.

How can the Conservatives claim that keeping Canadians safe is a priority when they are diverting funds intended for the RCMP?

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, that question by the member just shows how the opposition cannot be trusted with this country's finances. In fact, the previous Liberal government lapsed over $3 billion from this agency. The member opposite is simply trying to play politics over an accounting issue.

The truth of all of this is that seven times our Conservative government brought forward new resources to fight terrorism, and seven times the NDP and the Liberals voted against these resources.

The Economy

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, experts' forecasts regarding GDP growth are dropping every month. Job creation is stagnating, and we have two provinces that are headed towards a recession.

The Conservatives respond by cutting the infrastructure program by 90%, even though that program guarantees job creation and future prosperity. Worse still, the minister is postponing the budget until May and says that no immediate action is needed.

Why are the Conservatives being so irresponsible with our economy?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, our government has a low-tax plan for jobs and growth for all sectors of the Canadian economy that is working and will return Canada to a balanced budget this year.

While we are focused on creating jobs, the Liberal leader has the old Liberal high-tax, high-debt agenda that would threaten jobs and set working families back.

We are proud of our plan that is lowering taxes and providing benefits directly to families for them to reinvest in the Canadian economy. In contrast, the Liberal leader is looking at reversing our doubling of the children's fitness tax credit, and has even said that he would convince Canadians to accept a tax hike.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the government just drives by all the worries of Canada's middle class and all those who are working so hard just to get there. Their earnings are stagnant, but their debt has ballooned to 164% of disposable income. Three-quarters do not have a pension, and in 40% of empty nester households their adult children have moved back home. Their expectations of progress, of upward mobility from one generation to the next, are frustrated.

Why is the government's only priority an income splitting tax break that would pay the most to those earning $233,000?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is absolutely false.

To quote a headline right out of the New York Times, “Canadian median incomes among the highest in the world”. That was the same report in which they found that, for the first time, the Canadian middle class is actually wealthier than the American middle class, a situation that was reversed under the previous Liberal government.

Our low-tax plan for families will help 100% of families with kids, providing on average of $1,000 per household. The only plan the Liberal Party has is to raise taxes on middle-class families, which will drive jobs down and poverty up.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the New York Times story said that the situation was that the U.S. economy had fallen back, not that the Canadian economy had moved forward.

The late Jim Flaherty said that income splitting was too expensive and would cost $12 billion over the planning cycle. He also said that it would be unfair, because 86% of Canadians would never qualify.

It worsens inequality; it does nothing for growth. Will the government at least use this budget hiatus to do two things: recycle that $12 billion into the pockets of real middle-class families, not those earning $233,000; and invest in municipal infrastructure to drive jobs and growth?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the family tax cuts apply to families at all income levels, and the Liberal plan to reverse it would raise taxes on working and low-income families. That would kill jobs. It would imperil our economy and it would drive up poverty.

The fact is that under the low tax plan we introduced, 180,000 children were lifted out of poverty during the recession, according to UNICEF. That shows that when we put our dollars directly into the pockets of mum and dad, they always do the right thing. They always lift themselves up and bring their children with them.

Public Safety

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is now clear that the Conservatives never had any real intention of debating Bill C-51. No sooner did debate begin than it was shut down. There were just a few hours of debate on an issue as important as Canadians' basic rights and freedoms. That is ridiculous.

Why is the government trying to sweep this under the rug? What is with the steamroller approach? What is the government trying to hide from Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, let us look at this in the current context of things. This bill is aimed specifically at protecting Canadians from the evolving threat of terrorism. One only needs to turn on the nightly news to see what is happening around the world, and what has in fact happened in our own country.

We will have debate in the House. The bill will move before a committee where we will hear from experts on the subject of terrorism. However, we want, on behalf of Canadians, to put more tools in the hands of our police forces to allow them to protect our country with proper oversight.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the irony is that Conservatives would actually benefit the most from more debate on the bill since there seems to be so much confusion among their ministers about what is actually in it.

The Minister of National Defence claims that Bill C-51 “doesn't give new powers to police or intelligence agencies”. Now if he has not read the bill, I can assure him that Bill C-51 dramatically expands the powers of CSIS and that CSIS decides whether any judicial approval is ever needed.

Does the government understand the consequences of the bill it has tabled and why are Conservatives trying to ram through a bill that they obviously do not understand?

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

Mr. Speaker, we understand full well that over 80% of Canadians support these new measures. We understand full well that these are practical, common sense measures designed to give police greater ability to protect Canadians in our communities through measures that are thoroughly requiring judicial oversight, through measures that will be given ample opportunity to be reviewed by Parliament.

However, the reality is that we have a pressing need to bring forward these measures. There will be debate in the House. There will be scrutiny at committee. There will be testimony of expert witnesses to give their perspective on this important bill, but we need the bill now.

Justice

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government's focus on terrorism has sidelined other critical public safety priorities. Shockingly, even child pornography investigations are being systematically underfunded. Over the last five years, the RCMP withheld $10 million in funds from child exploitation projects. Why? Conservatives say it is to reduce the deficit.

Does the minister find it acceptable to balance the books by cutting back on resources set aside to stop child sexual exploitation?

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, once again, it is absolutely false. I will say it one more time to be perfectly clear. Perhaps the opposition members should hear it this time. No funding for protecting children from sexual predators has been cut.

I will quote something from the report, because we talk about the importance of finding qualified people to deal in this area with regard to child pornography and sexual exploitation. It is a very difficult field and very difficult on the law enforcement people who get involved. This is one of the reasons why. Basically in the report it speaks of “online child exploitation” in particular “is a psychologically demanding field of law enforcement specialization”.