House of Commons Hansard #56 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was chair.
Scott Brison LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board
Mr. Speaker, last week, we put an end to partisan government advertising. The policy on advertising clearly states that it applies to any message paid for by the government for placement in media. That is not the case in this example. We were and will continue to be clear. We have put an end to partisan government advertising.
Denis Lebel Conservative Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, what the minister just said is that that organization is not receiving money from the Government of Canada for its operations. We will be following this very closely.
The rules are very clear: advertisements must be devoid of any name, voice, or image of a minister, member of Parliament, or senator. Canadians are of course shocked by this ad.
Can the Prime Minister tell us why the rules do not apply to him?
Scott Brison LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board
Mr. Speaker, it was not paid advertising. That is a little rich for the Conservatives, who spent hundreds of millions of dollars in some cases advertising programs that did not exist, in some cases spending $100,000 for a 30-second ad in the NHL playoffs.
The Conservatives ramped up government spending on partisan advertising at the same time that they slashed funding for Canada's summer jobs for students. We have cut the advertising budget because we are doubling the amount we are investing in summer jobs for students. We believe that it is a better priority to invest in young Canadians than to—
Denis Lebel Conservative Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals just cannot stop breaking their own promises. The same day that they announced new rules for government ads, they broke them with polished visuals of the Prime Minister. The hypocrisy is astonishing.
Will the Liberals pull the government-funded ad?
Scott Brison LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board
Mr. Speaker, the policy was very clear that in terms of paid advertising, no minister or member of Parliament or prime minister will be in ads. We brought in these new policies, which for the first time define clearly what is acceptable in terms of government advertising and what is not, in response to 10 years of taxpayer and power abuse of this under the Conservatives.
We are serious in that we are ending partisan advertising. We will continue to do this because it is the right thing to do. We will invest in Canadians.
Andrew Scheer Conservative Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK
Mr. Speaker, last week the Liberals falsely claimed that taxpayers' dollars would not be used for any kind of advertising that included the image of politicians, but it did not take long for the Prime Minister to break his own rules. If the Prime Minister wants to appear in a taping of Celebrity Chef, he should do so on his own dime, not the taxpayers'.
Can the Liberals confirm that no taxpayers' funds were used from any department, crown corporation or agency to pay for any aspect of this self-promotion, including its production?
Scott Brison LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board
Mr. Speaker, clearly we define in the policy what is acceptable. Ads must be objective, factual, and explanatory. They must be free from political party slogans or images. It is clear the policy defines that for advertising it is any message paid for by the government for placement in the media.
It is very clear as well that this was not paid government advertising, so the Conservatives should change their questions now having learned the truth on this.
Andrew Scheer Conservative Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK
Mr. Speaker, that answer should come with a disclaimer. It is too bad that the Liberals did not tell Canadians to check the fine print on their election promises. They have more disclaimers than a pharmaceutical ad.
The PMO is parsing words to justify their skirting of the rules so that the Prime Minister could still appear in this vanity video. Will they just stop this blatant self-promotion on the taxpayers' dime?
Scott Brison LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board
Again, Mr. Speaker, the policy defines, and we are being very clear on this, that it is for any advertising message paid for by the government for placement in media. It is very clear that this example was not paid government advertising.
The Conservatives, who spent hundreds of millions of dollars promoting themselves in partisan advertising, abusing the taxpayer, abusing our democratic system, should be ashamed to attack a government that is actually cleaning up the mess that they left.
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Mr. Speaker, government monies were used to produce those ads. They should stop playing games.
After the secret deal to protect the scammers in the KPMG tax fraud, today we learn that the RCMP is investigating corruption, collusion, breach of trust, and fraud at the Canada Revenue Agency, a parallel system within a government agency that has seen three senior executives fired. Canadians have a right to know how this happened. When will the Prime Minister call an inquiry into the shadowy system at the CRA?
Diane Lebouthillier LiberalMinister of National Revenue
Mr. Speaker, I want Canadians to know that all allegations of misconduct on the part of agency employees are taken very seriously and are systematically investigated.
My colleague across the aisle knows very well that I cannot comment on any matter that is currently under police investigation. However, all agency employees are expected to adhere to a rigorous code of integrity and professional conduct at all times.
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Mr. Speaker, this is a system within the CRA to help the richest avoid paying their taxes. That answer just does not cut it.
The agency is making headlines for giving the rich preferential treatment to help them avoid paying their taxes. We are hearing about corruption, collusion, and fraud. A number of senior executives at the agency have been fired.
Who is in charge at the Canada Revenue Agency?
Will the Prime Minister stand up and confirm that he plans to get to the bottom of this shocking affair immediately so that those Canadians who pay their taxes will know why it is that the rich are not required to pay their taxes?
Diane Lebouthillier LiberalMinister of National Revenue
Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes how important it is to combat tax evasion and international tax avoidance, as indicated in our election platform and my mandate letter.
Regarding the Panama papers in particular, I instructed my officials to get the list. We now have it. This is a problem of global proportions. We are taking a close look at all the data we have today and will do the same with the data still to come.
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Mr. Speaker, does her mandate letter allow her to leave a system in place that allows the richest Canadians to avoid paying their taxes? We need an answer for those taxpayers who pay their taxes.
Important projects are going to lose millions of dollars because of the government's infrastructure mismanagement. The Université de Montréal is waiting. They have been talking about infrastructure for months. A $350-million project may have to be postponed for a year.
Why are the Liberals unable to implement a system to—
Amarjeet Sohi LiberalMinister of Infrastructure and Communities
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that we are building a very strong relationship with the Province of Quebec. I met with three of the ministers last week when I was in Montreal to talk about the infrastructure needs of the community not only within Montreal, but also within the entire province of Quebec. We will be moving forward in delivering the commitment and also approving some of the priorities that are currently under review.
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Mr. Speaker, we have this little custom in Montreal. It is called winter. This project at the University of Montreal is going to miss a full year. The university calculates it will lose $12 million. This is the number one project on the list of the Government of Quebec. Liberals are incapable of giving any indication of when this project will actually be able to begin. That is incompetence. They have talked about infrastructure for months. They are doing nothing. Talk is cheap. When are they going to start acting?
Amarjeet Sohi LiberalMinister of Infrastructure and Communities
Mr. Speaker, when we look at the funding that was allocated to the province of Quebec in 2014, up until last October, zero dollars were delivered. So we understand the need that the province is facing. We are building that relationship in order to deliver on the commitment, in order to ensure that $1.7 billion that belongs to the province of Quebec is delivered on time. That is why we are working so hard to sign the agreement with the province on many projects and we will continue to work with it in order to deliver on this.
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Mr. Speaker, a referendum in which every voter in Canada would be able to cast a vote and in which every vote would be equal to every other is by far the most inclusive democratic tool. After all, almost 26 million Canadians are eligible to vote. They are young and aged, disabled, indigenous and newly arrived, women and men, and those who live in rural or remote areas. They are every type of Canadian the minister can imagine.
The minister should do more than just claim she will listen to these people. She should give Canadians the final decision. Why will the minister not let Canadians vote?
Maryam Monsef LiberalMinister of Democratic Institutions
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has suggested that there is only one valid way to consult Canadians. While it may be one option, I remain to be convinced that it is the best option.
When Ontarians voted on electoral reform in 2007, nearly half did not vote. When British Columbians voted on electoral reform, nearly half did not vote. Do we ignore these people?
This is the 21st century. We have modern tools to engage the public and tools capable of reaching those who do not traditionally engage. We intend to employ these tools.
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Mr. Speaker, in 1995, 92% of Quebeckers voted in a referendum. It is illegitimate to argue that somehow the fact that only about 15% of total voters in Ontario voted for an electoral reform system is a reason it should be rammed through without a vote. That is outrageous.
The Liberals' words do not match their actions, and increasingly they do not represent any kind of recognizable logic. They say that Canadians gave them a mandate to design a new system, but they are afraid Canadians may say no thanks. The Liberals say they want to listen to every Canadian, but they will not use the most democratic means available.
Every voice can and should be heard. Every voter in Canada can and should vote in a referendum. Why will the Liberals not hold one?
Maryam Monsef LiberalMinister of Democratic Institutions
Mr. Speaker, I do not share the desire of the member opposite to put all his consultation eggs in the referendum basket. Half the people impacted by past proposed electoral reforms in Ontario and B.C. did not participate. I am not surprised that talking to only half of Canadians is an acceptable approach for the Conservatives. However, this is not good enough for me, it is not good enough for our party, and it is not good enough for Canadians.
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have stacked the deck on electoral reform. All the decisions would be made by six Liberals who have given themselves a majority on the committee. Without a referendum on electoral reform, six Liberal MPs will make the decision on the future of Canadian democracy for the entire country. The minister needs to stand today and say if the Liberal government is truly interested in what Canadians have to say. Will the Liberals give each and every Canadian a direct say through a referendum, yes or no?
Maryam Monsef LiberalMinister of Democratic Institutions
Mr. Speaker, we want to hear from all Canadians. We intend to use a multitude of methods, including the special committee, town halls by all MPs in their ridings, social media platforms, and additional processes designed to reach every Canadian to build a consensus on how to achieve electoral reform.
Our commitment is an opportunity to engage with the 49% of people who have not participated in this process in the past. If the hon. member does not agree that this is a priority, then I am afraid he has missed the boat.
