House of Commons Hansard #208 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was pipelines.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not have to choose between their safety and their rights, despite what the other parties would have them believe. Both the Liberals and Conservatives have stood in this House and made all kinds of pronouncements that prey on people's fears.
We in the NDP will not allow fear to triumph over our principles. We will stand up today to defend our rights and our freedoms, and we will oppose Bill C-51.
Will the Liberals and the Conservatives follow our lead?
Steven Blaney ConservativeMinister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Speaker, I invite the NDP members to be guided by the Supreme Court, which has said that the Security Intelligence Review Committee is a model that strikes a balance between the protection of information and the procedural rights of individuals.
When will the New Democrats join us in taking measured, effective action? Will the NDP support our budget, which doubles resources?
What I really want to say is, “Wake up, NDP!”
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, today New Democrats are joining over 100,000 Canadians who are calling on Liberals and Conservatives to do the right thing and stop Bill C-51.
Tonight this House will take a final vote on this dangerous bill. It is the last chance for Liberal and Conservative members to stand up for our rights and freedoms and vote against a bill that we all know is fatally flawed.
Will the government take this last opportunity to change course? Will it listen to so many experts and so many Canadians and scrap this dangerous bill?
Steven Blaney ConservativeMinister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Speaker, it is the last time for the NDP to join the Muslims Facing Tomorrow, the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, to join the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, because they say we need strong tools that also protect the rights of Canadians.
We need to make sure that the jihadi international terrorists who are threatening us are prevented from acting by filling the gap of our information sharing. We will stand up for Canadians. Let us vote tonight to have a safer country.
Emmanuel Dubourg Liberal Bourassa, QC
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Liberal Party is proposing to lower the tax rate for the middle class. It is a simple and fair plan that applies to everyone. Today, I am giving the Conservative government another chance to answer this question, because Canadians deserve a straight answer.
Are the Conservatives, like the NDP, against having a new tax bracket for people who earn $200,000 or more in order to give back to the middle class, yes or no?
Yes or no?
Pierre Poilievre ConservativeMinister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader should know that budgets do not balance themselves. His election platform is not balancing itself either. The fact remains that there is at least a $2 billion shortfall. What is more, economists say that these tax hikes will not collect enough money to fill the other holes in his plan. He will have to increase taxes for the middle class in order to fill the financial holes in his plan.
This includes eliminating income splitting for seniors.
Ralph Goodale Liberal Wascana, SK
Mr. Speaker, if we focus on the middle class and all those working so hard just to get there; if we focus on fairness and growth and giving everyone a decent chance to succeed; if that is our objective, then Canada should have a bigger and better child benefit, one that is clean and simple, fair and tax free across the board, one that provides more help to nine out of ten Canadian families, middle and lower income families, the ones that need that help.
It is basic common sense. Why is the government against it?
Pierre Poilievre ConservativeMinister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform
Mr. Speaker, a multibillion dollar financial hole is not common sense. It is the opposite, in fact.
The Liberal leader admits he has a $2-billion hole, but on top of that, economists say that his tax increases will not be sufficient to fund his billions in additional promises. This is a massive hole that the Liberals would fill by raising taxes on the middle class.
The Liberals admit they would cancel income splitting for families. They would also have to do it for seniors, among other tax increases necessary to fill that massive hole.
Will the Liberal member stand up now and explain how he will fill that financial hole?
Ralph Goodale Liberal Wascana, SK
Mr. Speaker, I am the one member of this House who actually balanced a budget.
These guys inherited 10 Liberal balanced budgets and created $150 billion in new Conservative debt. This government is a fiscal fraud.
Now the Conservatives are punishing single moms and dads, who can never qualify for income splitting, but they are gifting a $2,000 tax break every year to those earning a quarter of a million dollars.
Why are Conservatives against a tax cut for the middle class, across the board, and why are they against a better child benefit, more generous and fair?
Pierre Poilievre ConservativeMinister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing generous or fair about raising taxes on the middle class, which is exactly what the Liberal Party would have to do. The Liberals admit that they have a $2-billion hole in their plan. On top of that $2-billion hole, economists say proposed Liberal tax increases will not be sufficient to cover the costs of Liberal spending promises. We know what Liberals do when they have multibillion-dollar financial holes. They raise taxes on middle-class Canadians. They already admit that they are going to raise taxes by cancelling income splitting for families. They will do that to seniors, too.
Élaine Michaud NDP Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, after being forced to remove images endangering our special forces soldiers from the Web, the Prime Minister's Office had to admit that it made a serious mistake.
However, again yesterday, a senior official said that these images did not violate security protocols. That is ridiculous. Our soldiers were obviously put at risk by this propaganda campaign.
How could the Prime Minister have let this happen? Was there no one in his office who thought to say that it might not be a good idea?
Jason Kenney ConservativeMinister of National Defence and Minister for Multiculturalism
Mr. Speaker, when concerns were raised about certain images, the government immediately took them down to verify whether protocols had been properly followed.
After another review, the government decided that two of the videos should not have been posted. We regret the error, and we are reviewing the protocols for the publication of such images.
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Mr. Speaker, this so-called error is shocking.
DND obviously knew that any images that could identify our special forces were a security risk. That is why it requires journalists to sign an undertaking that they would not publish such images.
Why, then, did no one in the PMO stop to think that its video violated these very simple rules promulgated by DND? Why did it later claim that DND had actually approved the video when that was not true? Why did the Prime Minister allow our troops to be put at risk to have a photo op for himself?
Jason Kenney ConservativeMinister of National Defence and Minister for Multiculturalism
Mr. Speaker, contrary to the member's inaccurate assertions, as the Chief of the Defence Staff has said in a statement issued last night, there was no risk to personnel, which is why there is no requirement for any Canadian Armed Forces personnel to be withdrawn from Operation Impact.
The government regrets the error and will take every possible measure to ensure that it is not repeated in the future.
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Why did he tell the journalists, Mr. Speaker?
It has been six days since Madam Justice Deschamps tabled her devastating report into the systemic problem of sexual harassment and assault in our military: a fundamental disregard for the rights of women. We need confidence that the report's recommendations be fully implemented, not just studied or deemed interesting ideas, and that there be a review of the military justice system that so utterly failed these women and men.
Will the minister act swiftly to personally ensure that all recommendations are fully implemented and will he commit to a review of how the military justice system handles these cases?
Jason Kenney ConservativeMinister of National Defence and Minister for Multiculturalism
Mr. Speaker, once again, of course, sexual assault of any kind, in any aspect of Canadian society, is completely deplorable and unacceptable. That is particularly true in the Canadian Armed Forces, which is why General Lawson commissioned this report by former Madam Justice Deschamps and it is why he and the military leadership have committed to implementing all 10 of its recommendations. Progress has already been made on two. I think, realistically, we cannot expect all 10 recommendations to be implemented in six days; however, General Whitecross has been charged with this mandate and is making progress.
We will ensure that the job is completed to ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces is a safe environment for women and all people to work in.
Mylène Freeman NDP Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Speaker, does the minister understand how urgent this situation really is?
According to the report by Justice Deschamps, harassment and sexual assault are not taken seriously by senior staff and leaders in the Canadian Armed Forces. The report clearly accuses the Canadian Armed Forces of maintaining a culture that is hostile toward women. That is a disgrace to Canada. It is degrading and insulting to all of the women who protect and defend our country.
Does the minister realize how serious this situation is and is he prepared to personally commit to changing it?
Jason Kenney ConservativeMinister of National Defence and Minister for Multiculturalism
Mr. Speaker, obviously all Canadians, all parliamentarians and all military personnel agree that sexual assault is completely unacceptable. That is why the Chief of the Defence Staff asked Justice Deschamps to conduct a review, that is why the Canadian Armed Forces accepted all 10 recommendations and that is why Major-General Whitecross was appointed by the Chief of the Defence Staff to implement the recommendations.
Obviously, as minister, I will be keeping a close eye on the military's progress in implementing these recommendations.
Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Mr. Speaker, of all the crimes in the Criminal Code, child porn is one of the worst of the worst. The idea that criminals are exchanging materials that exploit our most vulnerable in our society is a deeply troubling one. Canadians want to know that the individuals who partake in this kind of trade will face justice and have to answer for their actions.
We have heard today of an important operation aimed at countering child porn. Could the Minister of Public Safety update the House regarding the details?
Steven Blaney ConservativeMinister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Speaker, I will, but let me thank the great member for Kildonan—St. Paul for her outstanding commitment against human trafficking and child exploitation.
I would like to inform the House that more than three dozen people have been arrested in connection with a child pornography ring operating in 17 countries, one of whom is an individual who may have had more 2,000 victims.
We will continue to target these people who are going after our treasured young people, and we will continue to protect our children. We will put these criminals behind bars. We will put legislation in place, such as our sexual predator registry.
Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to giving benefits to the wealthy while ignoring the rest of us, Conservatives are consistent. Less than 40% of unemployed Canadians receive unemployment insurance benefits, but instead of improving access and making sure that the unemployed can put food on their table, the Conservatives chose instead to use the EI account to give benefits to the wealthy Canadians who do not need them. This money belongs to workers. Why are the Conservatives raiding the EI fund to pay for their bad policies?
Pierre Poilievre ConservativeMinister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform
Mr. Speaker, the member's question is false. In fact, the budget put out a policy wherein the EI account balances over time and EI premiums pay for EI benefits.
What the NDP wants is a 45-day work year, where people would work for 45 days and then they would collect EI for the rest of the year. This would cost billions of dollars. Of course, workers and small businesses who employ them would pay for it through higher payroll taxes.
We believe the opposite. There will be a surplus in the 2017 year and we will use it to cut premiums by 21%.
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Mr. Speaker, if you are among the 1.3 million Canadians without work, you are certainly not a priority for the Conservatives. In their latest budget, instead of using the EI surplus to help the far too many unemployed workers, they instead chose to offer programs that will almost exclusively help the wealthiest.
Less than 40% of unemployed workers qualify for EI, so when will the Conservatives stop using the premiums paid by workers and employers to finance their election goodies instead of supporting workers when they are going through difficult times?
Pierre Poilievre ConservativeMinister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform
Mr. Speaker, the question is false. There was a deficit in the EI fund during the recession. The fund is now paying back that deficit. In 2017 we will lower premiums for workers and employers by 21%.
The New Democrats want to bring in a 45-day work year. People would work for just 45 days to be eligible for one year of EI. That is ridiculous.
Denis Blanchette NDP Louis-Hébert, QC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday my leader and I announced that the NDP has a realistic and practical solution to resolve the Quebec Bridge painting problem, a problem that the Conservatives have allowed to fester for 10 years. I will introduce a bill requiring owners of heritage rail infrastructure, such as the Quebec Bridge, to maintain the historic state of that infrastructure at the owners' expense.
Does the minister agree with our solution?