Debates of March 6th, 2017

Preclearance Act, 2016

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the amendment lost.

The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion, the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #205

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Freedom of the Press

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on November 4, I asked the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness exactly how many journalists were under surveillance following revelations about attacks on freedom of the press in Quebec.

At the time, the minister said that was not happening at the federal level. The reply was surprising to say the least because we know that two journalists working for La Presse were in fact spied on by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in 2007 and that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service was able to illegally collect data.

We also know that on many occasions the Department of Public Safety authorized these same services to use devices to spy on Canadians' communications, as reported by the CBC/Radio-Canada in September.

Freedom of the press is one of Canadians' fundamental rights. Without freedom of the press there can be no freedom of conscience, and without freedom of conscience there can be no democracy.

We cannot accept that journalists are spied on to identify their sources. Freedom of information allows each one of us to form an opinion about the decisions made by those who govern us. To threaten that right is to abandon all the principles on which we have built our democracy.

How can the government justify breaking the bond of trust between journalists and their sources, who supply information of interest to the public in exchange for guaranteed anonymity?

I would like to remind the government that protection of sources was recognized and confirmed by the Supreme Court in a 2010 ruling relating to the sponsorship scandal. Are the Liberals making a habit of choosing surveillance and manipulation over democracy?

Right now, I am thinking of the people of my riding, where I have studied, lived, and worked almost my whole life. Like me, many of them read our local papers, such as the Courrier de Saint-Hyacinthe and La Pensée de Bagot. How are they supposed to feel well-informed knowing that the journalists who write the articles in the papers they read every day can be under surveillance by their own government?

Every day, men and women from coast to coast work to keep us informed about what is going on in Quebec, Canada, and the world. That includes journalists, but it also includes sources who reveal vital information of interest to the public. How can these men and women, many of whom risk their careers and even their lives to keep us informed, feel safe and secure if their anonymity is threatened by the very government that is supposed to protect them?

Enough with the broken promises and half-truths. I want to know when this government is going to start respecting our democracy. After backing away from electoral reform, championed by the NDP and then promised by the Liberals, and having the press under surveillance, what will the government do next?

The government also claims that safeguards for protecting the freedom of the press were still in place. However, investigators can spy on journalists for nine days without their supervisors realizing it. How much are these so-called safeguards really worth? Are we to still bank on the Liberals' promises and assurances? Unfortunately, we learned all about their values the hard way.

No, the uncertain assurances and empty promises will not cut it this time. Quebeckers and Canadians need proof and clear and precise answers. This Parliament should no longer tolerate the government's half-truths. I expect answers.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, freedom of the press is a fundamental Canadian value enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Democracy depends on the ability of the media to freely and independently collect information and share it with the public, so that members of the public can develop informed opinions and make informed choices. Our government has therefore been and will remain a vigorous and unremitting champion of press freedom.

The recent reports about police activity in Quebec are troubling, and I note that these reports about the Sûreté du Québec and the Service de police de la Ville de Montréal investigating journalists in an effort to identify their sources have led to action by the provincial government.

Let us be clear. As has been confirmed by the commissioner of the RCMP, the director of CSIS, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, and the Prime Minister, this is not happening at the federal level. I will reiterate for clarity, this is not occurring at the federal level. There are safeguards in place regarding federal national security investigations to ensure that journalistic freedom is protected. The RCMP, for example, is governed by a ministerial directive on sensitive sector investigations that outlines the special care required for investigations that impact fundamental institutions of Canadian society, including the media, academia, religion, and unions.

So too is CSIS subject to ministerial direction in this regard. Accordingly, the rules governing CSIS require a similar level of care, and indeed, a review by the Security Intelligence Review Committee summarized in its 2009-10 annual report found that CSIS has long exercised special care in the conduct of operations that affect, or even appear to affect, fundamental institutions like the media.

Nevertheless, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is reviewing these safeguards to ensure that they are appropriate and sufficient to protect freedom of the press in Canada. As he has said, and as our Prime Minister has said, our government welcomes input about any possible adjustments that might be required, including from the hon. member opposite, all hon. members and senators, as well as from members of the media. In fact, the minister has been quite clear that long before these reports in Quebec, he was reviewing all ministerial directives to ensure that they safeguard the rights and freedoms of Canadians.

Indeed, it has been a fundamental principle of our government since before we became the government that public safety and rights and freedoms must be protected simultaneously. We know that our national security and law enforcement agencies must have the tools and resources they need to keep Canada safe, and that these agencies must also be subject to effective and vigorous oversight, to hold the highest standards when it comes to respect for civil liberties and the rights and freedoms protected by the charter.

Among these fundamental rights and freedoms is certainly freedom of the press. It is critical for the open and democratic character of our country that press freedom be passionately and effectively defended. Our government has done that and will continue to do so.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, now more than ever, it is our duty in this House to protect democracy. We have a duty to represent the people of our respective ridings here today, as well as to ensure that there is nowhere in Canada, whether in Quebec or anywhere else, where Canadians are not protected and their fundamental rights are not respected.

Freedom of the press is not a partisan issue, but rather everyone's concern. My hon. colleagues of the House should all be outraged by this government's action, just as I am.

The parliamentary secretary's response is nowhere near sufficient. While strong evidence brought forward by journalists proves that some of their colleagues have been spied upon in order to identify their sources, the government is once again asking us to blindly trust it.

The safeguards are far from adequate, and the parliamentary secretary cannot guarantee us here this evening that journalists have full freedom of the press and that their sources are fully protected. The Liberals are once again shirking their responsibilities and are not fulfilling their duties as the government in power.

I must ask once again: can the parliamentary secretary explain to us how his government is protecting freedom of the press and how it is ensuring that the self-interest of our leaders does not take precedence over our rights?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, let us be very clear. This is not happening at the federal level. This has been stated unequivocally by not only the directors of CSIS and the RCMP, but by the Prime Minister and the minister.

Let me go one step further. Not only is this government relying on the fact that it has not happened, not only are we relying on the vigorous and strong mechanisms to protect freedom of the press, we are going further, both in Bill C-22, which will be before the House and which allows for political oversight of our security and intelligence framework, and in the review we are doing. In fact, very soon the committee will be tabling its recommendations on the security and intelligence framework to ensure there is vigorous oversight of all departments, so that not only are the powers in place but also the oversight mechanisms to ensure oversight is effective and is as strong as it can be.

Let me state unequivocally our support for freedom of the press, and to ensure that it is guarded in all forms with the utmost protection.

Taxation

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I want to continue with a follow up on a question I had the other day regarding a comment made by the mayor of Medicine Hat. During our HUMA committee, he was asked what he would do to help those in need. This had to do with money being taken out of the pockets of taxpayers, because of a government tax, to the point where they could not afford things. He was very open and said he would not charge it at all.

Many different provinces will be putting forward different solutions when it comes to the climate change development. In Ontario, Premier Kathleen Wynne is not only charging the carbon tax but also a tax on tax because part of that delivery charge also includes the HST. Therefore, when we talk about money grabs, that is exactly what Canadians see right now.

We talk a lot about climate change and what it means. Unfortunately, what we see is a mandate put in by the Prime Minister where, at the end of the day, we do not know where the money is going. It is no different than in the province of Ontario when it is puts something forward. It gets health care dollars and ends up building roads. Therefore, will we see concerns like this?

When people cannot afford to put food on their tables or pay for heat and hydro for their home, how can we honestly add another 4% to 15% on their taxes, or ask them to spend more when they can barely spend enough?

Of the 10 municipalities I have, some are doing very well and some are falling a bit behind. I know people in the communities that are falling behind will have to pay more in fuel to go to their jobs. Therefore, not only are they already behind the eight ball, they will now be paying more tax because of the carbon tax. I have heard the Prime Minister talk about how he will try to separate province to province and what they will do. However, as I indicated earlier, when we see the premier of Ontario have a tax on tax, this is just not right, especially for the people who cannot afford it.

My good friend from Carleton also stated this. When we look at an annual salary of $45,000, we are hurting those people who are below the middle-class line. There is actually no ceiling when it comes to the carbon tax. We are not targeting it, we are just saying that it is carte blanche, “take all the money you want.” We see this a lot, especially from the Ontario government. I suspect we will see it from other governments as well. Some may be putting in plans where they will take the money and put it into innovation and technology, so they can come out with great state-of-the-art programs that will reduce fuel emissions. However, we are sitting here talking about a carbon tax.

I know the parliamentary secretary will talk about us not doing so well. In the last 10 years, prior to the Liberal Party forming government, we actually reduced the carbon footprint. Therefore, part of my concern is that we are talking about spending money and about having polluters spend more money, but we are not taking into consideration the taxpaying people who cannot afford to put loaves of bread on their tables.

Those are some of my grave concerns. Therefore, I really want to hear he parliamentary secretary for the environment tell us how we will deal with this when there is tax on tax, when people cannot afford to put fuel in their vehicles to go their job because they are paying more and more.

In Ontario, we saw a jump immediately following the introduction of the carbon tax, and we will see more of that, just like we did on our hydro bills with the delivery charge. Therefore, I would like to have some comments on that, and on how Canadians will be able to afford this.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, in our platform we were pretty clear about our intention to provide comprehensive and national leadership on the climate change file, including ensuring that a price on carbon pollution existed across the country.

To respond to the member opposite's question, let me just talk a little about some of the actions we are taking and why.

Climate change is not a distant threat. It requires action now. Unlike the party opposite, which did virtually nothing for 10 years, effectively pushing the bill for future generations to worry about, our government intends to act.

Annual insurance claims for severe storms are up from $300 million in the year 2000 to an average of $1 billion today. The National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy estimated that total costs associated with climate change could reach $43 billion a year by 2050.

There are real and significant costs to not acting, but there is also a significant opportunity if we do act. As someone who was a senior executive in the clean technology space for 20 years, it is something I have seen first hand. In 2015, there was nearly $350 billion of investment in the global clean energy sector, almost a sixfold increase since 2004.

To make the transition envisaged under the Paris agreement, it is estimated that a further investment of $13.5 trillion in low carbon and energy efficiency technologies will be required between 2015 and 2030. However, in Canada, our share of global clean tech exports has shrunk during the past decade by half, due to Conservative inaction. Our government, by contrast, knows that we must take advantage of this economic opportunity.

A key part of driving innovation and clean growth will be putting a price on what we do not want, pollution, in order to foster things that we do want, clean growth, innovation, and middle-class jobs.

British Columbia's introduction of a carbon price demonstrates well that we can reduce emissions while growing our economy. Not only that, but British Columbia used its revenue-neutral carbon price to cut taxes by 5% for the middle class and to provide rebates. British Columbia now has the lowest overall personal income taxes in Canada thanks to its carbon pricing system.

Many of the world's largest economies price carbon as a means to incent clean growth, and it is not just the countries of Europe. China, for example, is moving to implement a country-wide carbon pricing system.

Many leading Canadian businesses, economists, and even leading Conservative politicians are on board. They include Preston Manning, Mark Cameron, Patrick Brown, Brian Pallister, and MPs from the other side of the House. These people all know well that pricing carbon pollution is the most efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to reach our objective of protecting the economy and creating a clean growth environmental future. For this reason, it is a key part of the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change.

We on this side of the House understand that pricing carbon pollution will make our businesses more competitive and innovative, will reduce the pollution that threatens the health of Canadians and of the planet, and will give us an edge in building a clean growth economy going forward.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the raft of talking points his government has been giving for the last year and a half.

We have been asking about families, and that is something the member, in his response, did not once talk about. He talked about the regular things we are hearing from the Liberal government but did not take into consideration those people who are making $45,000 or less a year. Those are people who cannot afford a hybrid car and therefore are not getting a $10,000 or $15,000 rebate. Instead, they are having to drive cars that may still be emitting, because that is what they can afford, because the government has not focused on jobs.

These are some of the concerns. We can sit here and talk about the price of carbon and having people emit less, but what is happening to those families that have to use an older car because they cannot afford a new one or find a new job or a job that may pay more money, or anything like that? How are we going to do on that?

The government continues to talk about what it is doing for the middle class. What it has done here is target the lower class. They are going to be paying more and more money. They cannot afford those rebates the provincial governments are giving people for automobiles.

I want to know from the member specifically, what is he doing for low-income families who cannot afford the carbon tax?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of different things the government has done with respect to addressing the needs of middle-class Canadians and those working hard to join it. They include the middle-class tax reduction we did in the last budget. It includes the Canada child benefit, which nine out of 10 Canadians benefit from, raising 300,000 Canadian children out of poverty.

The focus of a carbon price is actually pricing pollution, which we do not want, in order to incent the things that we do want. The provinces have the ability to structure the use of the funds that are generated through a carbon price in a way they so choose. Alberta, for example, is actually giving it back in rebates to ensure that it is protecting people who are not earning a lot of money. British Columbia does that and actually reduced personal income taxes to achieve the lowest personal income tax rate in Canada.

There are many ways we can have a carbon price that tries to get at the issue, which is climate change and carbon pollution, while also protecting and fostering middle-class growth and helping those working hard to join it.

Ethics

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition has raised numerous questions about the government's habit of creating real or apparent conflicts of interest when cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister attend cash for access fundraisers.

The Liberal Party of Canada organized fundraisers, exclusively invited wealthy donors, used search engine protocols to hide them from Google search results, and specifically mentioned that ministers like the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, or the Prime Minister himself would be available for an intimate talk.

Such meetings create conflicts of interest when attended by registered lobbyists, since the latter pay to meet with ministers who make decisions which affect their clients. This is clearly a breach of the ethical standards that Canadians demand of elected representatives.

Such meetings also breach the Prime Minister's own code of ethics as laid out in his publication, “Open and Accountable Government, 2015”. Indeed, this document instructs ministers to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest, explicitly stating that the commitment to accountability is not discharged merely by following the letter of the law.

My second point would be funny if it were not so disturbing. At last count, the government House leader has claimed over 200 times in the House that Canada has the strictest rules in the world. Well, we know that the rules are strict. The issue is that the rules are not being followed.

When I asked the government House leader why she continued to defend cash for access fundraising when the Commissioner of Lobbying was investigating the fundraisers, she replied, “When the rules are followed, no conflict of interest can exist.” That statement is naively optimistic to the point of absurdity, and the whole government knows this. The Prime Minister knows it, since he acknowledged in “Open and Accountable Government” that avoiding the appearance of conflict of interest is not limited to simply following the technical compliance of the law. Cabinet members know it, since they have recently announced that they will introduce new ethics rules to further clarify expectations for fundraisers.

Canada does not need new rules to supplement what are perhaps the strictest ethics standards in the world; we just need the government to start obeying the rules that are already on the books. Liberals need to actually live up to the expectations they created in the statement on open and accountable government.

I ask again, why does the government defend cash for access fundraising? Why does it not listen to the lobbying commissioner when she says that a sense of obligation is created when a lobbyist organizes or hosts a political fundraiser and when the practice is known to be under investigation?

Why do the Liberals not listen to the Ethics Commissioner who calls their fundraisers unsavoury, who has asked for jurisdiction to enforce the standards in “Open and Accountable Government”, and who has launched the first-ever ethics investigation by her office of a sitting Prime Minister? Why do they not raise the standards that their own leader sets out in the mandate letters and in his own code of ethics?

Canadians want to know why ministers and the Prime Minister allow registered lobbyists to host and organize fundraisers for them, why the Prime Minister attends fundraisers with foreign nationals when he knows that only Canadians can legally donate to a party, and why the Prime Minister allows lobbyists at his fundraisers when he is on record stating that he is lobbied all the time since people want to talk about their issues?

Canadians want to know why the Prime Minister and his cabinet keep getting into conflicts of interest, real or apparent, and keep prompting investigations of their unethical and possibly illegal behaviour. We want to know why Canadians should trust the Liberal government to govern in the interests of all Canadians when it has shown time and time again that it puts its own party's finances above the rules for public office holders.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians very much value their democratic institutions. One of the most important features of our democratic institutions are the rules that have been put in place to limit barriers to participation to ensure that every Canadian who wishes to do so can participate, and to protect the integrity of electoral processes, one of which is political financing.

Over the years, the rules have been put in place to regulate political financing with a view to ensuring transparency and a level playing field for all political parties. Limits have been established with respect to annual contributions that can be made to candidates and to political parties. Only citizens and permanent residents are allowed to contribute. These rules are much stricter than in many other western countries. These rules exist for a reason. Canadians want their leaders to be accountable to all Canadians and not to a select few, to voters and not to corporations or to special interests. Rules are also in place to make political financing transparent. All contributions over $200 are publicly reported. No anonymous contribution is allowed over $20. Again, there is a stark contrast compared with many other countries where the requirements are not nearly as strict.

The objectives of transparency and equity are not only reflected in how political parties collect funds, but also in how they use them. There are established limits and reporting requirements as to how much political parties and candidates can spend during an election campaign. Further rules have been established for third party actors who wish to get their views out and heard during an election campaign. Overall, these strict rules contribute to ensuring a level playing field and to fostering a healthy political debate within Canadian society.

Our political financing regime is sound. However, the strength of our democratic institutions also lies in the fact that we are continuously looking at ways to improve these institutions. That is why the Minister of Democratic Institutions has been mandated to take steps to further enhance transparency in political fundraising. For example, when cabinet ministers, party leaders, and leadership candidates are present at fundraisers, we believe the fundraisers should be conducted in publicly accessible spaces, advertised in advance, and reported on in a timely manner after the fact. We believe that measures to increase transparency on fundraising activities will positively impact Canadians' trust in their democratic institutions. The minister has also been mandated to review the limits for electoral campaign expenses and also to propose measures to ensure that spending between elections is subject to reasonable limits.

These measures are the types of actions that we believe will constitute concrete steps toward the overarching objective of enhancing the integrity of our democratic processes. Our government is committed to demonstrating leadership in seeking to maintain and deepen Canadians' trust in our democratic institutions.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the recitation of the strict rules that exist, and for the aspiration for even greater transparency and accountability. It is absolutely incredible, though, to hear the member talk about how the rules are set up so that, for example, as he said, citizens only can participate in fundraising activities and in our democratic processes, when the Prime Minister attends fundraisers with foreign nationals. It is incredible that the member would go to the trouble of explaining the strict nature and the goal of enhancing participation of Canadians, while his own party and own government have so flagrantly, obviously, and completely ignored, abandoned, and paid no heed to any of these aspirations.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, there are very strict rules in Canada that relate to political financing and to electoral expenses. We on this side of the House have abided by and will always continue to abide by all applicable rules. The Government of Canada is committed, though, to taking concrete steps to further improve the system, as we are looking to improve things across all ministries in this government. The government intends to proceed with increased transparency requirements for fundraising events and will also review things like spending limits, including considering options to establish reasonable limits between elections. This an important issue, and I thank the hon. member for raising it in the House.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:53 p.m.)