Debates of May 14th, 2015

Consumer Protection

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, five years ago, the Conservatives announced their so-called Fairness at the Pumps Act. They promised that 65,000 gas pumps would be inspected annually, but Industry Canada has not yet handed out a single penalty, despite data that show that 6% of pumps fail to dispense the right amount of fuel. Can the minister explain why no penalties have been levied, or was this legislation just more empty Conservative promises on consumer protection?

[Ed Holder, Conservative, Minister of State (Science and Technology)]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian families expect that when they purchase gasoline, they get what they pay for. That is why our government took action and passed the Fairness at the Pumps Act. It ensures that gasoline pumps are routinely inspected for accuracy. It is clear that our legislation is working, and Canadian consumers are getting what they pay for.

If it were up to the opposition, the price of gasoline would be higher because of their implementing a carbon tax. For that, I say “shame”.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the act does not work at all. Quebeckers are tired of waiting. It has been five years since the Conservatives passed their Fairness at the Pumps Act. This act provided for mandatory inspections and harsh fines for offenders. However, Industry Canada inspectors have not issued a single fine since the act was passed. Zero. Zero sounds about right for the Conservatives.

Can the minister explain why nothing has been enforced under this act?

[Ed Holder, Conservative, Minister of State (Science and Technology)]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian families expect that when they purchase gasoline they get what they pay for. That is why our government took action and passed the Fairness at the Pumps Act, which ensures that gasoline pumps are routinely inspected for accuracy. It is clear that our legislation is working and Canadian consumers are getting what they pay for.

I said it in English the last time. I am going to say it again. Were it up to the opposition, we would be paying a higher price at the gasoline pumps because of its carbon tax. I say “shame”.

Taxation

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's family will receive the same child care cheque that a single parent family will receive, or $120 for two teenagers. Under the Liberal plan, that same family will receive $900 a month tax free, and the Prime Minister's family will receive nothing. That is what we call fair.

How can the Conservatives justify having the Prime Minister receive the same amount as a single parent family that has a hard time making ends meet?

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

Mr. Speaker, our tax cut for families and our increased universal child care benefit helps every family, with most of the benefits going to families in need.

The Liberal leader said that assisting every family was not fair. He is wrong. Our policy is to help all families by putting money directly into their pockets. The Liberals would take that money away from them and increase taxes.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, because the government refuses to make its child care benefit progressive, based on need and tax-free, the results for families are perverse. Families of different types but with exactly the same number of kids and income end up with very different after-tax benefits. One-earner couples get the most, two-earner couples get less, but single parents get the least of all.

If the government's credo is “identical treatment for everyone alike”, why does the government discriminate against certain types of families? How is that fair?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader admits that he would scrap income splitting. He admits that he would scrap the universal child care benefit. He admits that he would gut the tax-free savings accounts, but even after he does all of those things, he is still billions of dollars short. Just the other day he admitted what he really thinks. He said, “Mr. Speaker, benefiting every single family is not what is fair.”

He is absolutely wrong. We believe in benefiting 100% of families.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, if it is fair that child care benefits must be paid in exactly the same amount per child at all income levels, why do the Conservatives discriminate so radically against lower-income families?

It is not just the uneven taxation of child care benefits. On top of that, their $2-billion tax break for income-splitting means a couple earning a quarter of a million dollars can get $2,000, but a single mom or dad at the poverty line will get nothing at all. How is that fair? How is that equal?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely false. The universal child care benefit would help a single parent at the poverty line. It goes to every single family: $2,000 per child under the age of six. That is why it is called universal.

The Liberal leader would take away the universal child care benefit. He would take away income splitting. He would gut the tax-free savings accounts. Maybe that is why he said. “benefiting every single family is not what is fair”. He is absolutely wrong.

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, in a memo to the minister, CSIS sounded the alarm about the lack of resources to handle cyberattacks in Canada.

We know that the number of attacks every day is going up and that more and more personal information is ending up in the hands of cyberhackers and foreign governments. The Conservatives' cuts are being felt, and the money allocated in the latest budget is not nearly enough.

When will the minister finally resolve the situation and ensure that Canadians are safe from cyberattacks?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

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

I can confirm that, on pages 326 and 327, the budget allocates additional resources to address the cybercrime challenges facing the government and businesses. One good way to help businesses coping with cybersecurity challenges is to support the Conservative government's budget. That is in addition to the strategy we have implemented.

While the Liberals have done nothing, we have implemented a strategy and provided additional resources. We certainly did not get any support from the New Democrats or the Liberals. Nevertheless, we will continue to take the necessary steps to address this new threat to businesses, individuals and the government.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, regardless of the props the minister uses, CSIS was clear: the one-time investments that the minister made have not been nearly enough to increase the operational capacity at the agency.

Government needs to be able to ensure the private information of Canadian businesses and families. The Conservative government has not done nearly enough. Its investment in cybersecurity is nowhere near that of our allies and certainly nowhere near adequate for Canada.

When will the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness stop being a paper minister in the digital era?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, the member can look at the budget on the website, and I quote: “Securing Government systems”, “Partnering to secure vital cyber systems outside the federal government”, “Helping Canadians to be secure online”. That is in the budget.

The member can stand up and support the budget. Why? It is because we are investing to make sure that industry, Canadians, and the government are protected against cyberattacks.

We have a strategy. Why is the member of the NDP not supporting these measures?

Canada Revenue Agency

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Here we go again, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of National Revenue continues to drop the ball when it comes protecting the personal financial information of Canadians. Check this one out.

CRA found that 22% of its employees were duped by a fake phishing email scam. That is like giving an all-access pass to cybercriminals. We are talking about the most important information that Canadians turn over to government.

Now the current minister and her tired, worn-out government are running out of time. She has three months left in her job. Is she not going to establish some kind of protocols to protect the private rights of Canadians?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, the CRA must always be improving on its security processes and how it deals with the personal information of all Canadians. Our government expects nothing less.

This was a learning exercise conducted by the CRA to improve employee awareness about a particular cyberthreat. The results are now being used by the CRA to improve its security awareness and training for all employees. At no time was taxpayer information at risk, nor was there any capacity whatsoever for taxpayer information to be compromised.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is just ridiculous.

The personal information stored by the Canada Revenue Agency is extremely sensitive. We are talking about social insurance numbers and financial information. I think Canadians have every right to expect stringent security measures.

When employees were tested to see if they would fall for phishing scams, over 3,500 took the bait. There is nothing to celebrate here.

Can the minister guarantee once and for all that our data are protected?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, this was a learning exercise that the CRA conducted to improve employee awareness and our processes to respond to a particular cyberthreat. The results of this exercise will be used to improve security awareness and training at CRA. Again, at no time was taxpayer information at risk, nor was there any capacity for taxpayer information to be compromised.

The opposition has asked what we are doing about cyberthreats. That is what we are doing, exactly that.

Taxation

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the leader of the Liberal Party who wants to divide Canadians, we want to ensure that all Canadian families benefit from our measures that keep taxes low, so they can spend on their priorities. Can the Minister of Employment please update this House on how our measures are impacting families across Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, the family tax credit benefit goes to 100% of families with kids. The Liberal leader, this week—I think he accidentally told the truth—said, “benefiting every single family isn't what is fair”. That is why he plans to take away income splitting, he plans to take away the universal child care benefit, and he plans to gut the tax-free savings account. These are just the clawbacks and tax hikes that he admits, but even after all of that, he is still billions of dollars short in his plan, proving that his numbers just do not add up and there would be more Liberal tax hikes to come.

On this side of the House, we are cutting taxes for every single family.

International Development

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unsafe abortion is responsible for 13% of all maternal deaths worldwide, but Canada will not help women in developing countries access safe abortion services, even though it is permitted in the majority of Canada's countries of focus for development assistance and in Canada itself.

Why is the minister refusing to save the lives of women and girls in developing countries by refusing to offer the full range of reproductive health services?

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, we will not export controversy; we will export our world-leading expertise. Our efforts are backed by the international community, and we continue to rally international consensus for our program in partnership with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. We will not reopen this debate, and we will not export divisiveness.

We will continue the leadership of the Muskoka initiative because what matters most are results, and that is what we are delivering.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about results.

The results are as follows: unsafe abortion is responsible for 13% of all maternal deaths around the world. This government claims it wants to save all women's lives, so it must save those women too.

Why is this government giving peanuts when it comes to family planning, and why is it putting its ideology ahead of women's health?

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we are not going to export controversy. We are going to continue to export our world-leading expertise. The results we are getting under the Muskoka initiative are nothing short of miraculous. We are saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of women and millions of children every year.

Let me read what Melinda Gates said about this. She stated:

We have made such great progress for women on prenatal care, on providing the contraceptives that they want, and on encouraging proper care and nutrition for newborns, and we need to keep moving forward. The only way to do that is to be clear, focused, and committed

National Defence

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the minister proposed changing the National Defence Act to try to repair the damage caused by the Conservatives turning a blind eye to sexual assault in the army. The damage runs much deeper than that: military justice does not work when it comes to addressing cases of harassment and sexual assault.

Will the minister commit to overhauling the military justice system? Is he prepared to eliminate this culture of trivializing sexual misconduct?