Debates of May 5th, 2015

Taxation

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

Mr. Speaker, our family tax cut and benefits help 100% of families with kids. Family tax cuts through income splitting will put up to $2,000 in the pockets of couples. The universal child care benefit will grow to $2,000 per year for kids under age six, and $720 for kids ages six through seventeen.

The Liberals have announced that they would raise taxes on families. They would replace the family tax cut with a Liberal family tax hike. They would roll back the tax-free savings accounts. Even after all that, they admit that they would have a $2 billion hole. We are lowering taxes for Canadians.

Seniors

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, raising the age for old age security from 65 to 67 years is nothing short of a Conservative attack on seniors. Conservatives claim that all seniors are flush with cash, but we know the opposite is true. Seniors and those nearing retirement make up more than 30% of bankruptcy filings in Ontario and have more debt than younger people have. Many others face growing debt and tight cashflows. Doubling the TFSA limits will be of no help to seniors filing for bankruptcy.

Why do the Conservatives have such contempt for Canada's seniors?

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

Mr. Speaker, for seniors who have just downsized and want to invest the proceeds of their sale, or seniors who have had one spouse pass away with a small inheritance following, the tax-free savings accounts allow them to save. That is why almost two-thirds of those who max out their tax-free savings accounts have incomes below $60,000. However, the Liberal plan has a $2 billion hole and that means they will not only have to eliminate income splitting for families, but they will also eliminate it for seniors.

Raising taxes on vulnerable seniors is the last thing we should be doing. We should lower their taxes.

National Defence

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last month, the Minister of National Defence committed to considering the proposal from the Duchess of Kent Legion, in London, to move into the officers' mess at Wolseley Barracks. Like so many branches of the Legion across Canada that care for and reach out to our veterans, the contribution of this Legion to the London community and our veterans is immeasurable. However, time is running out.

Has the minister made a decision on the proposal? If not, when can the Legion and the community expect an answer?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, properties are rightly assessed to ensure they meet all requirements. In this case, these buildings are aging infrastructure that is almost 60 years old and is no longer suitable or required for the Canadian Armed Forces. The Government of Canada remains fully committed to the military presence in London; this includes a joint personnel support unit, a military family resource centre, and the reserve force units' medical and dental clinics located there.

This government will continue to use taxpayer dollars wisely and stand up for our forces.

Taxation

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition parties sadly oppose our tax cuts for northern families and, instead, propose tax hikes on the middle class.

They even support a carbon tax, which would make life far more difficult for northern families.

When the Liberals were in government, they failed to meet the obligations to the people in Nunavut and—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please.

The member should know that questions should touch upon the administrative responsibilities of the government, not other parties.

We will move on to the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, 126 first nation reserves have unsafe drinking water. In Scandinavia and Europe, zero communities have unsafe drinking water. One such reserve is Shoal Lake 40, in Thunder Bay—Rainy River, which has had to boil its water for 17 years.

The reserve wants to know, and the Council of Canadians wants to know. Why does Winnipeg get safe water from Shoal Lake while the first nations on that very same lake do not?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, our government continues to take action on first nations across Canada so that they have the same quality of drinking water as all other Canadians. That is why, since 2006, we have invested approximately $3 billion in first nations' water and waste water infrastructure and related public health activities. We have made targeted investments in more than 130 major projects and funded maintenance of over 1,200 waste water and water treatment projects.

As a matter of fact, in the economic action plan of 2014, we committed a further $320 million for two years.

International Trade

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, subsequent to a Bloc Québécois motion that was unanimously adopted in the House, for nearly 10 years, the Canadian negotiation policy required negotiators to keep the supply management system intact. The government said repeatedly that it would defend that position. However, now, the Prime Minister is saying that we will have to make sacrifices during the negotiations for the trans-Pacific partnership. Everything seems to indicate that the federal government is preparing to sacrifice supply management.

Can the Minister of International Trade confirm that the negotiators' mandate is still defined by the Bloc Québécois motion that received unanimous support?

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, what has the Bloc Québécois done for agricultural producers in Quebec and Canada? Nothing. What will the Bloc Québécois do for them? Nothing.

What we have been doing since 2006 is negotiating free trade agreements and providing economic freedom while protecting the principles of supply management. That is something concrete, and I am telling agricultural producers in Quebec that the past is an indication of what the future holds.

Presence in Gallery

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of:

In the category of distinguished Canadians, this University of Ottawa alumnus is the honorary chair of the campaign cabinet of the University of Ottawa and the popular host of Jeopardy.

Who is—Alex Trebek?

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. opposition House leader is rising on a point of order.

Points of Order

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

Mr. Speaker, last week you allowed a question from a Conservative to a Conservative minister that touched on the Avon Maitland District School Board and whether or not they would be providing unpaid leave to an employee.

I can give you many other examples of Conservative questions to Conservative ministers that have absolutely nothing to do with the federal government at all, not government operations or government administration, but those questions are allowed.

Today we had two very relevant and pertinent questions from the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île and the member for Timmins—James Bay. Those questions touched on the ministry of justice, on the work of the Auditor General currently in examining the Senate spending scandal. Even more important, the Senate spending scandal and the Prime Minister's appointment of those senators are actually issues that have been debated in this House of Commons around appropriations bills.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, Bill C-54 was adopted and given royal assent on March 24, 2015. That was a bill that was debated in this House of Commons.

There are traditions in this House that go back for decades. Those traditions allow for questioning the government on its administrative responsibilities. Your decision today was inexplicable, and I would like to say that—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I will stop the hon. member there.

As the member will know, when questions fall outside the bounds of the administration of government, as today, both on the NDP side and on the government side, as it turns out, they are ruled out of order.

As I mentioned to the member the last time he brought this up, I can provide him with the ruling I gave in January 2014 and hope that will help him understand, going forward.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-51, An Act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

Anti-terrorism Act, 2015

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre has five minutes left for his response.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I left off by remarking that I had heard members of the NDP stand in this place and say that no experts support this important legislation, Bill C-51.

I would ask them if they do not believe that Justice John Major is an expert, and he said:

I don't think Parliament is equipped as a body to act as an oversight body, which is what is being proposed.

I would ask what they think about former assistant director of CSIS Ray Boisvert, when he said C-51:

...will be a very effective tool to get...[jihadist propaganda] material off the Internet.

I would ask what they think about the Canadian Thinkers' Forum, which said:

The government's proposed Bill C-51, when passed by Parliament, shall help Canadian Muslims to curb extremist elements....

The fact of the matter is that credible experts are fully in support of this very important legislation.

As my time is drawing to a close, I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to the most important thing I heard from witnesses who came to speak on the anti-terrorism act 2015. Louise Vincent, sister of slain Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent said:

Had Bill C-51 been in force on October 19...Martin Couture-Rouleau...would have been in prison, and my brother would not be dead.

That is probably the most poignant quote. That is what I will be keeping in mind when I vote on this legislation. I call on all members to put aside their ideology and support this important legislation on behalf and for all Canadians and all of Canada.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite astonished that the hon. member would cite former Supreme Court justice John Major as someone in favour of this legislation. He is, as an expert, someone who does not think Parliamentary oversight is as effective as a national security advisor. That is what he repeated multiple times in his testimony, that this bill should not be passed without a national security advisor. In his own words he said that, from what he has seen with the present proposed legislation, nothing in the present proposed legislation is going to ensure adequate information sharing between the RCMP and CSIS.

In other words, the hon. member, no doubt through talking points about legislation with which he is barely familiar, has ignored the actual testimony of a former Supreme Court judge who has urged this House not to pass Bill C-51 in its current form.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am astounded that the hon. member understands so very little. I used to be a member of the Canadian Forces and worked in a domestic operations cell, so I understand something of how our agencies work together and the co-operation and intelligence sharing that happens. I can say from my experience then and my experience today as a parliamentarian that this legislation is needed. It is common sense. We have arrived at a very different point in our history and we have to be nimble in our legislation and in the defence of our nation, our democracy, and our citizens. We have to modernize our security protocols so that all of our security agencies interact, so that all of our coordination is done with the sole intent of keeping Canadians safe and maintaining our security, our prosperity, and above all, our liberty.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member across the way, and he made reference to a specific quote by an individual. Therefore, I would like to get a sense of the government's position. Is it the government's position that, had this legislation that we are currently debating been in place, it would have prevented a life from being taken in either of the terrorist attacks last fall?

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a distinct possibility, because as I spoke to this individual, it was noted and noticed that where the peace bond process comes in, if there is an opportunity to seize upon an individual ahead of the commission of a crime, or a potential crime in a terrorist context, that is indeed possible. I have spoken to our police in Toronto, in my area, and others who are involved in the intelligence field, and friends I have amongst police officers through long acquaintance and service with them, and I learned that this very important legislation would allow them to identify early anybody who is suspected of being in commission of a potential terrorist act and to intervene and interdict in order to protect Canadians.

I do not want to be the guy to have to explain why a whole bunch of people got killed when law enforcement would have been able to act sooner.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am just following up on the question from our colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands.

I would like to ask my colleague from Etobicoke Centre whether or not he realizes that Mr. Justice John Major was one of the signatories to the letter from the four former prime ministers, including the Right Hon. Joe Clark, criticizing this bill and indicating that oversight and review must accompany the bill or it should not pass. Is he aware that Mr. Justice Major, whom he cited in support of the bill, was a signatory to that letter?