House of Commons Hansard #197 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was programs.

Topics

EthicsOral Questions

2:15 p.m.

Outremont Québec

NDP

Thomas Mulcair NDPLeader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, in his deal with Mike Duffy, Nigel Wright agreed that, if asked, the Prime Minister would make a public statement confirming that Mike Duffy met the residency requirements to sit as a senator from Prince Edward Island. The Prime Minister went ahead and made that very statement five days later on February 27, 2013, when he claimed that Duffy was a P.E.I. resident. However, now the government's own prosecutors are saying just the opposite in court. In fact, they are saying that it was not true.

Is the Prime Minister claiming that the government's own lawyers are now misleading the court?

EthicsOral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Calgary Southwest Alberta

Conservative

Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister

Mr. Speaker, once again, what I am saying is that there is a whole series of charges against Mr. Duffy that relate to his improper use of public funds. Obviously I am not going to comment on those matters.

We have assisted the RCMP in its investigation. We have been assisting the Crown in its prosecution of this case, but obviously I will leave the evidence before the court to be decided on its merits.

Public SafetyOral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Outremont Québec

NDP

Thomas Mulcair NDPLeader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, now 60 Canadian business leaders are speaking out against the Conservatives' Bill C-51:

...this proposed legislation will undermine international trust in Canada’s technology sector, thereby stifling the kinds of business our...companies can generate....[O]perators of online platforms...[fear the] risk of criminal sanction for activities carried out on their sites.

With senior business leaders now siding with the NDP against the Conservatives' Bill C-51, will the Prime Minister finally withdraw this attack on Canadians' rights and freedoms?

Public SafetyOral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Calgary Southwest Alberta

Conservative

Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister

Mr. Speaker, we know that the NDP has never supported one serious anti-terrorism measure ever, in any Parliament in this country. The reality is that these measures are strongly supported by Canadians.

These measures parallel the kinds of authorities that other national security and police agencies have in other countries. As a matter of fact, it is absolutely unacceptable that websites or the Internet would be used for terrorist recruitment purposes. It should be a crime, and it will be a crime when this legislation passes.

Public SafetyOral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Outremont Québec

NDP

Thomas Mulcair NDPLeader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, all of civil society is opposed to Bill C-51, and rightly so. Scholars have shown that it violates our rights and freedoms, environmentalists are worried about their freedom of expression, and now corporate leaders are saying that it is bad for business. The only ones who support the Prime Minister are the members of the Liberal Party.

Why does the Prime Minister refuse to listen to reason? Why is he ignoring everyone and and why in this case is he ignoring even the most respected business people in the country?

Public SafetyOral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Calgary Southwest Alberta

Conservative

Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister

Mr. Speaker, most Canadians support the government on this.

However, the Liberal Party can read the polls. That is the reality of the situation. We expect a strong response. Our law enforcement agencies, like those of other countries, have the powers necessary to counter jihadist forces. That is essential, and we will continue to act to protect Canadians.

I would also like to commend the police in Montreal for the arrests they have made and the work they have done in response to these incidents.

TaxationOral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Liberal

Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC

Mr. Speaker, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the government's plan to double tax-free savings account contribution limits is regressive, with benefits mostly going to wealthy Canadians. In fact, the PBO says that under this plan, gains for the wealthy will be 10 times those of other Canadian households.

First income splitting, now this. Why does the Prime Minister continue to prioritize tax breaks for the rich?

TaxationOral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Calgary Southwest Alberta

Conservative

Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister

Mr. Speaker, of course, of the some 11 million Canadians who have been involved in TFSAs, the vast majority are people of modest or middle-class incomes. The vast majority. It is fulfilling a promise we made.

I know why the Liberal Party and the NDP oppose these tax reductions. It is because they want to hike taxes on hard-working, middle-class Canadians because they need that money to give to bureaucracy to fund their priorities.

Hard-working, middle-class Canadians want more of their own money in their own pockets.

TaxationOral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Liberal

Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC

Mr. Speaker, the government cynically plans to spend billions on income splitting and increases to TFSAs, both of which overwhelmingly benefit wealthy Canadians. At the same time, it is increasing the retirement age to 67 from 65, putting the retirement security of our seniors at risk.

Why is the Prime Minister giving tax breaks to the wealthy, instead of ensuring that our seniors can retire in dignity?

TaxationOral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Calgary Southwest Alberta

Conservative

Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister

Mr. Speaker, we have cut taxes for all Canadian families and all Canadian seniors.

We instituted income splitting for seniors, and the Liberal Party voted against it. We introduced the largest increase in the guaranteed income supplement for our seniors, and the Liberal Party voted against it. It always votes against benefits for the middle class and tax cuts. It always votes against putting money in taxpayers' pockets. The Liberals want money for themselves.

TaxationOral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Liberal

Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC

Mr. Speaker, the government plans to spend billions of dollars to help the wealthiest Canadians by introducing income splitting and increasing the TFSA contribution limit. At the same time, the retirement age will increase from 65 to 67, jeopardizing the financial security of our seniors.

Why is the Prime Minister giving the wealthiest Canadians more tax breaks rather than helping our retirees live in dignity?

TaxationOral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Calgary Southwest Alberta

Conservative

Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister

Mr. Speaker, we cut the taxes of all Canadian seniors. Furthermore, middle-class seniors and people of modest means received the largest cuts. That is the reality.

However, the Liberal Party and the NDP always oppose tax cuts for these people because they want this money to go to the bureaucracy. We want this money to remain in the pockets of our taxpayers and our seniors.

EthicsOral Questions

2:25 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, former Senate law clerk Mark Audcent has testified that it was the business of the Prime Minister's Office to vet Senate appointees to see if they were actually eligible to sit in the Senate. On the day that Mike Duffy was nominated, the media pointed out that Duffy, as a resident of Kanata, did not actually have the right to represent Prince Edward Island. In response, the Prime Minister's spokesman, Dimitri Soudas, assured Canadians that Duffy would take the steps to become eligible, but that did not happen.

Can the Prime Minister explain why he failed to follow through on the promise to ensure that Duffy actually became a resident of Prince Edward Island and, therefore, eligible for that housing allowance?

EthicsOral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Oak Ridges—Markham Ontario

Conservative

Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs

Mr. Speaker, the constitutional practice on this has been clear for almost 150 years, but what it suggests to me is that the member is actually trying to make a victim out of Mike Duffy. Mr. Duffy is not a victim here. He is accused, after an independent audit, after an RCMP investigation, and, ultimately, the Crown believes that he committed fraud. We will see what the court says on that matter, but I am very surprised, now, to hear the NDP trying to make a victim out of this senator accused of such serious crimes.

EthicsOral Questions

2:25 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, maybe I will have to start this again because it is the issue of Duffy's eligibility, which the Senate has said was the role of the Prime Minister and it was his eligibility to sit that was the centre of the negotiations in the backroom, with Nigel Wright, in the Prime Minister's Office, which led to the bribery charge.

According to the RCMP, the audit was whitewashed on the issue of residency. Then the Prime Minister stood on February 27, 2013, to state that:

...all senators conform to the residency requirements. ...those [residency] requirements have been clear for 150 years.

Would the Prime Minister explain on what basis he considered Mike Duffy to be eligible for this housing allowance and a resident of Prince Edward Island?

EthicsOral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Oak Ridges—Markham Ontario

Conservative

Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs

Mr. Speaker, again, as I just said and as the Prime Minister said, the constitutional practice on this has been clear for almost 150 years.

Mr. Duffy is not a victim here. I cannot believe, now, that the NDP is trying to suggest that Mr. Duffy is a victim. Is it because the NDP is accused of doing the exact same thing, pretending that it was hiring people to work in an office in Ottawa when, really, these people were being housed in Montreal, in a partisan office, using House of Commons resources, against the rules, accumulating $2.7 million worth of illegal expenses?

EthicsOral Questions

2:30 p.m.

NDP

Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC

Mr. Speaker, the government has a duty to comply with constitutional requirements when appointing senators.

The parliamentary secretary told the press that it was up to the Senate to follow the rules, but that is not true. The Prime Minister is responsible for ensuring that constitutional rules are followed.

Why did he not follow them?

EthicsOral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Oak Ridges—Markham Ontario

Conservative

Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs

Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, constitutional practice has been quite clear on this for more than 150 years.

However, what is also clear is that one is not allowed to use House of Commons resources for partisan political purposes.

Now, this member used more than $25,000 of House of Commons resources for political purposes.

The member for Scarborough Southwest took it to a different level. He took almost $140,000 worth of resources that would have been used in his constituency and funnelled it to an illegal office in Montreal.

They should pay it back.

EthicsOral Questions

2:30 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, this may surprise you but I agree with my colleague.

Indeed, for 150 years, the rules for appointing senators have been clear: it is the responsibility of the Prime Minister. That is what we are saying. Even government lawyers agree with us on this.

Why was it so important to break the rules in order to appoint Senator Duffy? Why? Was it for his skills, his expertise and his great care in managing public property, or was it because they wanted to use Senator Duffy to do something other than study bills?

EthicsOral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Oak Ridges—Markham Ontario

Conservative

Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs

Mr. Speaker, this is a member who owes Canadian taxpayers more than $122,000. In fact, he owes them $122,122. He can repay the money that he illegally took from Canadian taxpayers by a money order. I am not sure if they take credit cards. I know he knows how to write cheques because he wrote 29 separate cheques to the separatist party in Quebec. I would encourage him to use one of these methods to repay the money he took illegally from the taxpayers of Canada.

Food SafetyOral Questions

2:30 p.m.

NDP

Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is taking unacceptable risks with food safety.

The union representing meat inspectors has sounded the alarm and is speaking out about a serious shortage of inspectors in Quebec. Quebeckers want the products on their plate to be of high quality. However, the government insists on off-loading its food inspection responsibilities onto the companies so that they can regulate themselves.

Why are the Conservatives giving up on food safety for Canadians?

Food SafetyOral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo B.C.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and for Western Economic Diversification

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want high-quality food on their plates, and that is exactly what they have.

Dr. Stuart Smyth, from bioresource policy, University of Saskatchewan, said:

Canada has one of the top...food safety systems in the world. Other countries look to our regulatory system as a model of food safety....

...food products that are available for purchase in our grocery stores are as safe as they possibly can be.

Food SafetyOral Questions

2:30 p.m.

NDP

Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Mr. Speaker, that is completely false. As history has unfortunately shown us, we cannot rely on companies alone to inspect our food. The Conservatives have probably forgotten that, since they continue making more and more cuts to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. That agency is predicting that the government will reduce spending on food safety by 21%.

Is food safety in Canada not important to the Conservative government, or do we need another serious crisis for the government to act?

Food SafetyOral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo B.C.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and for Western Economic Diversification

Mr. Speaker, the premise of that question is totally inaccurate. Food safety is at the highest level in Canadian history. Budget 2014 committed to 200 more front-line food safety inspectors. I would like to read another quote from Dr. Sylvain Charlebois with the University of Guelph, who said the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's method is the “right way” to approach inspections.

Food SafetyOral Questions

2:30 p.m.

NDP

Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON

Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that the parliamentary secretary should tell us so, because, quite frankly, in the city of Toronto there is one inspector, just one, for consumer protection for the entire city of Toronto, who is responsible for every restaurant, every retail store. There is just one inspector, but the government says just one is enough. Four and a half million people should be looked after by one inspector, the parliamentary secretary says.

What it actually boils down to, the bottom line, is when will the government actually get serious about food protection in this country, look after consumers and make sure that food is safe?