Debates of Feb. 6th, 2015

Ethics

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we learned that the Prime Minister's current chief of staff will be forced to testify in a criminal case involving a payment made by Nigel Wright.

Conservative Ray Novak will be called to testify, and we may even see the Prime Minister called to the stand. Maybe we will finally hear from the Prime Minister abput what he meant when he told Nigel Wright that the Mike Duffy payments were “good to go”, why he claimed that no one in his office except Nigel Wright knew about the payments when emails clearly show that many more were involved, or why he said he did not know about illegal payments when records show that he did.

Last summer at the PMO it was “difficult to imagine” the Prime Minister testifying. I would say it does not take much imagination now to see the Prime Minister take the stand. Hopefully Canadians will then finally get truthful answers from the Conservatives about the PMO-orchestrated cover-up of the Senate scandal.

Taxation

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since coming to office, our government has made it a duty to ensure that Canadian families have the support they need to grow and thrive. That is why our Prime Minister announced we would be putting hard-earned money back into the pockets of Canadian moms and dads with the family tax cut plan and the enhanced child care benefit.

Soon families in my riding of Etobicoke—Lakeshore will receive just under $2,000 annually per child under six. When it is added up, a family with three children will receive nearly $36,000 by the time the children turn six years old.

However, notwithstanding his lack of experience, the Liberal leader has shown that same old Liberal Party arrogance by pledging to reverse our tax breaks. Liberals will take this money away from Canadian families.

Unlike the members on that side of the House, we will continue to stand up for Canadian families.

Intergovernmental Relations

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's mayors have come together to send a clear message: our cities need real long-term federal investments in infrastructure, affordable housing, and public transit. Decades of neglect by Liberals and Conservatives have left our cities falling behind.

Why do the Conservatives refuse to invest in making cities more livable?

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities]

Mr. Speaker, our government has introduced the largest infrastructure plan in Canadian history. It amounts to $75 billion over the next decade. This includes a $53 billion new Building Canada plan to provide significant support for municipalities, provinces, and territories.

In less than a year, numerous projects have already been approved. An estimated $5 billion worth of projects have already been identified for funding. The projects include a new public transit system in Edmonton and highway systems in many other provinces.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the Conservative government is listening to municipal mayors.

Eighteen mayors of Canada's major cities are calling on the Conservative government to invest in public transit, infrastructure and housing in order to create jobs. The mayors had not even left Ottawa before the Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs turned them down flat.

Why do the Conservatives insist on giving tax cuts to the wealthy instead of investing in job creation for the middle class?

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities]

Mr. Speaker, in actual fact, municipalities and provinces own 95% of the public infrastructure in Canada. Notwithstanding this fact, the federal government is still there as a major partner.

We are also taking a leadership role with respect to federally owned infrastructure. Last fall, the Prime Minister announced $6 billion for federally owned infrastructure. These important investments will be made at national historic sites, Canadian Armed Forces facilities, research centres, and Coast Guard facilities, just to name a few.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the mayors of Canada's major cities represent two-thirds of the Canadian population. They are calling for public transit for their residents, who are stuck in traffic jams every day. They are calling for social housing for people who have inadequate housing, and safer and more efficient infrastructure.

Why are the Conservatives refusing to work with the municipalities and the provinces?

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities]

Mr. Speaker, as I have clearly explained, we are making record investments in public infrastructure across the country, and this includes record investments in public transit.

Since we formed government in 2006, we have invested close to $8 billion in public transit alone. This includes important investments in the new LRT system in my own home community of Waterloo region.

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we asked the minister a simple question about the new anti-terrorism bill. Once again, we did not get an answer.

Bill C-51 would extend CSIS' powers beyond intelligence activities, to enable the agency to disrupt terrorist acts, or interfere somehow, before they happen.

Could the minister clearly explain the types of activities that will be authorized?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. This is a very important question. In fact, there has been some erroneous and inaccurate reporting around this subject.

CSIS' mandate to disrupt threats will be based on the definition of “threats to the security of Canada”. It is found in section 2 of the CSIS Act. It has been based on CSIS' primary investigative mandate since 1984. The definition includes espionage, sabotage, foreign-influenced activities, terrorism, and subversion, and it explicitly excludes lawful advocacy, protest, or dissent.

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

Mr. Speaker, it seems the more questions we ask on this, the fewer answers we are actually getting. Canadians deserve better. They actually deserve concrete and complete answers to the questions we are asking.

Allowing CSIS to go beyond the collection of intelligence and into the business of enforcement and the disruption of threats is a major shift. It is the duty of the government to clearly explain what is meant by this change and why it is necessary. What kinds of activities would Bill C-51 allow CSIS to undertake? Who will determine when charter rights—Canadians' rights and freedoms—are threatened and judicial oversight is required?

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

The short answer, Mr. Speaker, would be, of course, a judge. I will point out that the powers being granted to CSIS will be subject to strict limits. CSIS will be forbidden from taking any measures that cause, intentionally or by negligence, death or bodily harm; that violate the sexual integrity of an individual; or that willfully obstruct, pervert, or defeat the course of justice.

CSIS will not become a law enforcement agency. CSIS employees would not be given the powers of peace officers, such as the ability to arrest or imprison individuals. CSIS has always been and will continue to be required to seek a warrant.

The Economy

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the budget for the building Canada fund for infrastructure dropped from $2 billion to $210 million this year. It has been cut by 90%. Retail stores are dropping like flies and the manufacturing sector has shed 400,000 jobs. These sectors need the infrastructure to be competitive and to create good jobs.

In addition to delaying the budget, the Prime Minister told us, on Tuesday in the House, that we are going through an economic crisis.

Is it true that we are in an economic crisis or did the Prime Minister make a mistake?

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

Mr. Speaker, since the depths of the global recession, almost 1.2 million net new jobs have been created, over 80% full time, over 80% in the private sector, and over 60% in high-wage industries. However, Canada is not immune to the economic challenges beyond our borders. That is why our Conservative government is working hard to help create jobs and economic prosperity.

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

Infrastructure

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, when Canada's premiers call for increased infrastructure investment, the finance minister calls them oblivious to economics. Yet economic experts like David Dodge, the IMF, and the Bank of Canada agree that there has never been a better time to make infrastructure investments here in Canada. The Conservatives are not listening. In fact, they slashed the building Canada fund by 90% to create a notional surplus on the eve of an election.

Will the government heed the premiers and the economic experts, reverse these harmful cuts, fix Canada's infrastructure, and create jobs and growth for Canadians?

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities]

Mr. Speaker, once again, that is incorrect. Furthermore, I would add that we will take no lessons from the Liberals, either on investing in infrastructure or on balancing the budget. When they were in government, they did so little on infrastructure. How did they balance the budget? They did it by slashing transfers to health care and education and by starving municipalities. Our government has been repairing the damage ever since.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, adding $160 billion to the national debt does not sound like the Conservatives are doing a very good job repairing damage.

The Conservatives are fudging the numbers on the building Canada fund. They are inflating them by spanning them over a decade, when in fact 70% of the funds will not even flow until after 2019. They could get even more creative with their accounting. They could span the fund over 100 years and create a really, really big number. Meanwhile, in reality, they have actually cut the fund by 90% for the next two years to create this notional surplus on the eve of an election.

When will they stop misleading Canadians with creative accounting and actually fix Canada's infrastructure?

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities]

We are making record investments, Mr. Speaker. The new building Canada plan has been open for business since last March. In less than a year, projects representing an estimated $5 billion have already been identified for funding. We are there as a major partner with municipalities and provinces. We are renewing infrastructure. We are creating jobs and prosperity and enhancing the quality of life for all Canadians.

Foreign Affairs

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the world is currently coordinating its response to ISIS-inspired terrorism and extremism. Canada should be at the table and not on the sidelines. A major security conference in Munich is happening this week to discuss terrorism. Twenty world leaders are attending, along with some 60 foreign and defence ministers.

I have a very simple question for the government. Will Canada be represented at this important international summit, yes or no?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has gotten up and asked questions about our response to ISIS, and we have responded in the areas he has been concerned about. We have responded in the areas of sexual violence, protecting minorities, dealing with war criminals, and dealing with refugees, and we are proud of the effort our country has put into dealing with this issue and dealing with the crisis in Iraq and Syria, and we will continue to work on the issue.

Public Safety

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, many Canadians are concerned that Bill C-51 would go too far by lumping together legal dissent with terrorist activity. When it comes to critical anti-terrorism outreach at home, the Conservatives are still missing in action. The only counter-radicalization program the minister can point to has been on the drawing board since 2013, but it still has not been rolled out, and when it is, it is not going to get any new funding.

Is this the minister's only plan to work with communities to counter radicalization?

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

Mr. Speaker, there are numerous ways in which we are countering radicalization, including the ability, now, to remove material that is seen to incite or provoke terrorism. Beyond that, we have cultural round tables. We have outreach. The security forces themselves are very actively engaged in that.

However, I want to point out that the hon. member quotes selectively from the SIRC report. The report goes on to state that:

The Committee is confident that it has the expertise and ability to effectively take on new challenges.

It goes on to state:

...the Committee has confidence in its ability to adapt [to measures and]...remains relevant and effective in providing proper accountability of Canada's security intelligence activities.

They should quote the entire--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please.

The hon. member for Alfred-Pellan.

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

Mr. Speaker, if we want to fight radicalization, the federal government absolutely has to work with the communities that are on the ground.

Instead, the Conservatives are using the terrorist threat to advance their political agenda. Experts fear that this is counterproductive. We all agree that terrorism is a threat.

Does the minister recognize that this is too important to be made into a campaign issue?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

Government agencies and departments have many opportunities to consult the community on efforts to combat radicalization.

However, let us be clear. This is not an issue of playing politics. This is an issue of imminent threats. This is an issue we are adapting to in an evolving threat environment. That is why the legislation is brought forward, that is why these efforts are ongoing, and that is why the members opposite should--