House of Commons Hansard #159 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was 2017.

Topics

Justice and Human RightsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

7:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

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

Justice and Human RightsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

7:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Justice and Human RightsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

7:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to)

Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1(2)(d), the proceedings on the bill shall come to an end.

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

Foreign AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

7:40 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in this adjournment proceeding. I had asked a question on February 24, 2017, regarding Reporters Without Borders and their 2015 World Press Freedom Index. At the time, it showed that, in fact, Canada had dropped from its eighth rank in 2015 to its 18th rank. It actually dropped 10 spots. Namibia, Jamaica, Costa Rica, and Slovakia were all ahead of us.

The questionnaire this was based on was 87 questions long. Quite a bit of qualitative and quantitative data had been collected in 20 different languages. The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs gave me an answer that I would simply define as bafflegab or gobbledegook, something in that manner. It was a mash-up of buzzwords and talking points that would not be understandable in any sort of English, or a French translation, that would be acceptable to me.

One thing I would also mention is that the criteria, categories, and indicators for the questions talked about pluralism, media independence, environment of self-censorship, legislative framework, transparency, and infrastructure. All six points were in this 87-question questionnaire I was bringing up in the House. I was seeking further clarification from the government on why, in fact, after a year in power, Canada had dropped to the 18th spot in terms of the World Press Freedom Index.

We have seen, over the past 18 months, many journalists complain about having been the victims or the targets of police investigations. I will switch to French here for a moment.

On November 2, 2016, journalist Marie-Maude Denis said on Twitter, “I've just learned that my incoming and outgoing calls have been spied on by the Sûreté du Québec in 2013”.

Alain Gravel said, “My turn to get a confirmation that I was targeted by court mandates to obtain a log of my calls by the SQ”.

Here is another quote from Isabelle Richer, who said, “Surreal … The SQ spied on my cellphone following a formal complaint made by Michel Arsenault in 2013”.

These statements were posted on Twitter on November 2, 2016.

That was not the only case. There were several other journalists in Canada who had been found to have been investigated by a police service of some sort, including Marie-Maude Denis and Alain Gravel, as I mentioned; Isabelle Richer, who I mentioned; Éric Thibault, from the Le Journal de Montréal; Denis Lessard; and Gilles Toupin and Joël-Denis Bellavance, who are both Ottawa-based journalists working for La Presse.

I felt that my questions to the minister and the parliamentary secretary, who answered, were pretty reasonable. They were just laying out the case that we were finding it unusual that so many journalists had been the target of what would be considered limitations on their press freedom. As well, there was this international organization, a well-regarded international organization, which had been producing this particular index at least since 2002, when it started, an index that had been going on for 14 or 15 years and was well respected internationally and is one the government should be aware of. The parliamentary secretary was simply incapable of providing an answer to the question.

I will mention that when the previous Conservative government took power in 2006, it was indeed in 18th spot, and over time, we actually saw it bounce up and down just a little bit, but it was going in the right direction, which was towards more press freedom. In fact, in 2015, it had finished in the eighth spot.

Again, going back to the categories and indicators, pluralism, media independence, environment and self-censorship, legislative framework, transparency, and infrastructure, Canada had been going in the right direction, which was towards more press freedom.

My question to the parliamentary secretary, and it is a question I repeat today, is this. Why has Canada dropped 10 spots, and why are we behind countries like Costa Rica, when we should be moving ahead and up in the rankings?

Foreign AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

7:45 p.m.

Scarborough Southwest Ontario

Liberal

Bill Blair LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise on this issue and to do my very best to respond to the concerns and issues raised by my friend across the hall.

First, I would like to emphasize for the House how important this issue is to our government and to all Canadians. As the member opposite surely knows, our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is celebrating its 35th anniversary this year. One of its most important guarantees is the right to freedom of expression, including freedom of the press and other media expression.

Freedom of the press is a fundamental Canadian value protected by our charter. It is also recognized in some of the core international instruments which are binding upon Canada, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man.

Our government has and will defend this right assiduously, as well as the underlying values of truth seeking, democratic debate, and personal freedom. Our commitment to openness and transparency is informed by these values.

I would also like to mention that the core role of the media in promoting freedom of expression is not only recognized by our government and our charter, but it is recognized throughout all our federal laws and programs. A specific example of this can be found in our Criminal Code, where courts have recognized the core role of the media in the context of police search powers. In exercising their discretion whether to issue a search warrant, there is clear legal authority requiring justices to consider the fundamental nature of the freedom of the press. These considerations are a natural extension of the value Canadians place on this important freedom.

According to the Supreme Court of Canada, media play a vital role in the functioning of a democratic society, and freedom to publish the news necessarily involves a freedom to gather the news. Because the media advance the search for truth and make vital contributions to the democratic debate on matters of public importance, a free press is essential for promoting the core values contained in the charter.

Of course, I am not talking only about freedom of expression, but also numerous other rights, such as freedom of assembly, association, and of course our democratic rights as citizens.

As we are all aware, section 1 of the charter guarantees charter rights subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Although reasonable limits of freedom of the press are justifiable under section 1, our courts will scrutinize any such limits carefully, in recognition of the crucial role played by the media in Canadian society.

Our government is aware of the most recent complaints that have been raised against the Service de police de la Ville de Montréal and the Sûreté du Québec with respect to journalists. We look forward to hearing details about these specific instances during the hearings and from the report that will be issued by the Chamberland commission, when its important work begins this week.

At the same time, I want to be perfectly clear for the member opposite and for the House that both the RCMP commissioner and the CSIS director have publicly confirmed that such practices are not taking place at the federal level.

We are reviewing the safeguards that exist federally to ensure they are appropriate and sufficient to protect the fundamental Canadian value of freedom of the press.

Foreign AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

7:50 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary did a much better job of trying to address the question but again failed to answer the question of why Canada had dropped 10 spots on the index. I fear the hon. gentleman on the other side, who has honourably served our country as a Toronto police officer for many years, has been hanging out with too many lawyers. I recently read an excellent biography written about him. We have had many conversations about judicial issues. However, with all due respect to the lawyers in the House, they are prone to bouts of legalisms and splitting of hairs.

My question is very simple. There is a Yiddish proverb that I want to bring up: “Truth is a slowpoke.” These complaints started in November. This index was put out in 2017. My question was in late February. Here we are in April, and I am still searching for an answer on why Canada dropped 10 spots on the index. It is not about our Charter of Rights. It is not about specific cases. It is a consistent, chronic problem. There is no other reason we would drop 10 spots on the 2015 World Press Freedom Index of Reporters Without Borders. Why did we drop those 10 spots?

Foreign AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

7:50 p.m.

Liberal

Bill Blair Liberal Scarborough Southwest, ON

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, I am not aware of all the issues examined or the events that were under consideration by those who compiled the index. However, it is reasonably safe to conclude that most recent events, in particular the allegations concerning the activities of two major police services in Canada in their actions and dealings with journalists, may have had an impact on that index. As the member opposite has already acknowledged, it can go up and down in response to recent events. I would be reluctant to speculate, frankly, without further information on why that might happen.

I reiterate for the member and for this House that freedom of the press is essential to the preservation of an open and democratic society. I believe Canada has an outstanding record of resolutely supporting the right of journalists to pursue and share information.

As the member is well aware, there are rare occasions when we place reasonable limits on freedom of the press, particularly where public safety may be at risk. Nonetheless, I am very proud to reiterate our government's commitment to the values of protecting the safety and security of Canadians while respecting our rights and freedoms under the charter.

I hope that is a satisfactory response to the member's inquiry.

Public Services and ProcurementAdjournment Proceedings

7:50 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to address a question I originally asked on November 30, 2016, about the decision by the Liberals to unilaterally change the number of fighter jets that the military needs and the decision to sole source the Super Hornet. The question was who wrote those statements of requirement, the air force or the PMO.

As we know, through this whole discussion, the requests and desires of the Royal Canadian Air Force have been completely ignored by the government. The Liberals announced on March 14 that they finally wrote the letter to the U.S. government for the decision to go ahead to sole source 18 Super Hornets. It took them five months just to write one letter. What the Conservatives have been calling on the government to do is actually hold an open and transparent competition so that we can get the best equipment at the best price for the brave men and women who serve us in the Royal Canadian Air Force.

I just want to point out that other allied countries have done full competitions in very short periods of time. The Liberals have punted the decision down the road to make a decision on what plane we are going to buy in a competition five years from now. That is unacceptable. They took five months just to write a letter to the Trump administration on getting permission to buy the Super Hornets.

Denmark ran a fair and open competition in just 11 months, Norway ran a fair and open competition in one year and 11 months, and South Korea ran a fair and open competition in one year and four months. Why are the Liberals wasting five years to hold a competition on the replacement of our CF-18s when the previous government and the Liberal government have already done all the surveys and all the analysis on all the planes that are out there? The statements of requirement can be written today, and the plane could be selected in a relatively short period of time.

If one talks to defence experts like Alan Williams and former commanders of the Royal Canadian Air Force, they all say that this decision can be made in a year and that we can get the best value and the best plane for our troops and taxpayers, while making sure we protect Canadian jobs.

As people know, the joint strike fighter program, the F-35, already employs hundreds of Canadians across this country in more than 100 companies that are already making pieces for the F-35, which is in full production and operation around the world.

We have to remember that, when the minister and the government talk about a capability gap, it is a manufactured capability gap. It is one that they fabricated on their own, and it has no reality or basis in logic at all. The Royal Canadian Air Force has always said that we have enough planes to do the job it is called upon to do, whether it is NORAD or NATO.

We also know that research done by Defence Research and Development Canada back in 2014, a public document that the Liberals will have classified and taken off the website, showed that we have enough fighter jets currently to do the job. There is no capability gap. That report also showed that running a mixed fleet of two or three different types of fighter aircraft is too expensive and too cumbersome for infrastructure training and operations here in Canada through our rather smaller fighting aircraft in the Royal Canadian Air Force.

It is not in the best interests of Canada, the industry, or taxpayers if the Liberals proceed with the sole source and not move immediately to an open, fair, and transparent competition.

Public Services and ProcurementAdjournment Proceedings

7:55 p.m.

Gatineau Québec

Liberal

Steven MacKinnon LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his advocacy, which I share, for our men and women in uniform. I appreciate his often thoughtful interventions on the issues of the day. That said, as the great Dave Mason once said, “There ain't no good guys. There ain't no bad guys. There's only you and me and we just disagree.”

The decision by the government to proceed with an interim fighter solution indeed addresses what we think is a pretty clear capability gap. In fact, it is a capability gap that was the legacy of the government which we took over from, a government which, during its entire tenure in office, failed to be resolute, failed to proceed, and failed to make a decision on the future of Canada's fighter jets. The Conservatives wasted precious years, mismanaged, and often, regrettably, highly politicized processes that resulted in failed procurements and suffered from an unfortunate lack of transparency.

Let us not forget the overall goal at the heart of this issue. It is to ensure that our men and women in uniform have the equipment they need to do their jobs. That is what animates this government. It is what animates the military advisers to the Minister of National Defence. It is what animates the Prime Minister and the government, and it is what will continue to animate us, whether it is air force purchases or military purchases generally. Those who serve our country are often in harm's way and our government is not prepared to take unnecessary risks with their safety.

Our government is actually dealing with the reality of Canada's aging fleet of CF-18 fighter aircraft.

We have consulted widely to assess risks and analyze procurement options. We have made decisions, and we now are proceeding with a plan that addresses the needs of the Canadian Armed Forces in both the short and long term.

As part of our plan, the government will conduct an open and transparent competition to replace the fleet of fighter aircraft. This will be an open and transparent process, overseen by a fairness monitor, that will ensure that we get the right aircraft at the right price, with maximum economic benefits for Canadians.

We will not cut corners on this process. The process requires extensive planning and stakeholder engagement to successfully design and implement. We will take the time needed to consult, develop requirements, and assess solutions in order to get the aircraft and in-service support that meet Canada's defence needs and provide best value to Canadians.

The CF-18s were purchased in the 1980s and the fleet is down from 138 aircraft to 76 today. We are no longer able to meet our international commitments with certainty. Therefore, we have undertaken discussions with the U.S. government and Boeing about the potential acquisition of 18 new Super Hornets. These discussions are aimed at determining if an interim solution can be provided at a cost, time, level of capability, and economic value that are acceptable to Canada.

Last month Canada submitted a letter of request to the U.S. government as part of this process. The letter outlines Canada's requirements for the interim aircraft and associated in-service support. No offer, we can assure Canadians, will be accepted unless it meets Canada's requirements at a cost, schedule, and level of capability acceptable to Canada.

We believe we have come up with a good solution and we are very confident in what we are putting before Canadians. We are confident that, in perusing magazines like Skies, the Super Hornet is the right choice for right now according to experts. We know that this decision is being supported within and outside the government.

Public Services and ProcurementAdjournment Proceedings

8 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

First, Mr. Speaker, I have to address the member's comment that this is a disagreement between just him and me. I must say that there are 13 former commanders of the Royal Canadian Air Force who have written that this is a decision that will ultimately damage the nation's defence posture. Nobody is more passionate about the air force than these retired generals. This again reflects on how politically naive the Prime Minister was by making this very dangerous campaign promise of buying anything but the F-35.

The Liberals say they are going to move to an open competition, but it is five years down the road. We know that the current CF-18 fleet can only fly until 2025, and they are not going to replace those planes until 2030 to 2035. The first planes will probably not arrive until 2032 after we get this interim buy of Super Hornets. They also think that they are going to save taxpayers money, and they are not. They already have had to admit that.

In their campaign, the Liberals promised that the F-18 Super Hornets would only cost $65 million per jet. I would tell the member that Kuwait is the last country that bought Super Hornets, 40 of them, and Kuwait paid over $335 million per fighter jet. That is not a savings on anyone's books.

If we went to an open and transparent competition today, we would get the best plane at the best price in the best interest of Canadian defence.

Public Services and ProcurementAdjournment Proceedings

8 p.m.

Liberal

Steven MacKinnon Liberal Gatineau, QC

Mr. Speaker, I see we are getting nowhere with respect to resolving our disagreement but, again, I thank the member for his intervention.

At the end of the day, this is about getting the right equipment, at the right time, with the right capability, for our men and women, those men and women who protect us in doing their jobs every day. However, we also want to maximize economic benefits to Canadians. We have taken active steps to ensure that Canada can meet its international commitments in the short and the long term.

I would like to reiterate that the government is committed to conducting an open and transparent competition to replace Canada's fighter fleet, but we are also going to go forward with this interim solution. The member opposite seems to recognize that, yes, our fighters will come to the end of their useful life, even though we are doing our best to extend it. There is a need for an interim solution. We are going to fill that need and then, obviously, we are going to launch the open and transparent process that we promised Canadians.

Canada Revenue AgencyAdjournment Proceedings

8 p.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House to follow up on a question I asked the Minister of National Revenue about the Auditor General of Canada's report, which shed some light on some troubling aspects of management within the Canada Revenue Agency. This information is extremely troubling and I would like to go over some of the figures with the parliamentary secretary to see whether they are still accurate.

At the time, there were at the CRA 171,000 files related to objections to notices of assessment. Average taxpayers submit their income tax returns. It is timely that we are discussing this right now, because this is the time of year that we submit our tax returns to the CRA. The agency assesses the information and data in the return as it is submitted, and then it sometimes sends a notice of assessment to indicate that the return contained some errors and the taxpayer owes the CRA more money than originally thought.

In this situation, the taxpayer has the right to object to the Canada Revenue Agency's position and to state that the report was completely reliable, that it included all the necessary information, and that the information was correct. If the CRA maintains the opposite, the taxpayer can initiate a process that can be very lengthy, and that is what the Office of the Auditor General revealed. In fact, cases of objections can sometimes go on for more than two years before the CRA responds. The taxpayer submits his or her tax return, the CRA responds that it is not quite accurate and that the taxpayer owes one amount instead of another. At that point, the taxpayer can file an objection. It can take the CRA up to two years in some cases to provide more specific information about an existing dispute.

The Auditor General, who raised this issue a few years ago, had to raise it again in 2016 because there were still major problems with Canada Revenue Agency delays in responding to notices of objection. Processing takes four times longer than in other countries similar to Canada. It takes four times longer for people to get responses to their objections than in other countries. In Canada, it can take as long as two and a half years to get a response.

When I raised this matter, the Minister told me that “an action plan to reduce processing times for objections is already being drawn up.” She even added, “It will be completed in early 2017.” It is now April 4, 2017, so there is no better time to ask the question. Considering that it is already April, what is the status of the action plan that the Minister of National Revenue promised to complete in early 2017?

I would like more information about this action plan that we are all, including the Auditor General, waiting for. The Auditor General made eight recommendations, and the minister said that she supported and welcomed them all. Where is the action plan that was to be delivered in early 2017? It is now April 2017.

Canada Revenue AgencyAdjournment Proceedings

8:05 p.m.

Brampton West Ontario

Liberal

Kamal Khera LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak about the diligent work that our government is undertaking to improve the way income tax objections are managed and processed.

As the hon. member opposite is aware, in November 2016 the Auditor General examined how efficiently the Canada Revenue Agency processes income tax objections. The CRA agrees with the eight recommendations and has developed an action plan to address each of them. The work is already under way to improve service to Canadians.

Canadians must have access to the highest level of quality service when they engage with the CRA. This is at the heart of the minister's mandate letter, which was developed after listening to Canadians. I am wholeheartedly committed to making every effort to reach this level of service.

Canadians want a government that delivers on its commitments, which is why the CRA is working to make real change happen. The CRA is using funding from budget 2016 to start improving its services by increasing its capacity to efficiently resolve taxpayer objections.

Every year the CRA carries out millions of actions related to individual and business tax returns. Of the 66 million transactions with taxpayers in 2014-15, only 0.1% resulted in an objection.

The CRA has already taken concrete steps to strengthen the way it manages tax objections. It has identified areas of delay and conducted a full review of the objection process. Since January, the CRA has started to implement changes to its processes to reduce lengthy processing times. As such, it is looking to other comparable organizations to leverage best practices, and it continues to transform its operations.

Our government has made a firm commitment to supporting Canadian taxpayers by providing complete, timely, and accurate information. This is a priority for our government, which continuously strives to uphold the Taxpayer Bill of Rights.

The CRA's current way of measuring processing time is based on the complexity of an objection. In November 2016, we published descriptions of the different levels of complexity on our website. In April of this year, just a few weeks ago, we added updates to include actual and expected times for processing objections, as well as our new service standard for assigning and resolving low-complexity objections.

The CRA will strive to respond to taxpayers on low-complexity objections within 180 days 80% of the time. These represent 60% of all objections. Better service for Canadians means service delivered in a way that makes taxpayers feel respected and valued.

In line with the CRA's guiding value of collaboration, we will also ensure that decisions on objections and appeals are shared internally with all assessing and audit areas. This will be done through an enhanced and formalized feedback process. By sharing explanations on why decisions are made, employees will be able to learn from these changes, and processes will be revised where required.

The Auditor General has spoken, and the CRA is taking action. By working to resolve income tax objections in a timely manner, the CRA will give Canadians the certainty they need about their tax affairs to make informed decisions for themselves and their family. We recognize the importance of resolving income tax objections in a timely manner and we will build on the progress that the CRA has made to continue providing helpful, client-focused service to all Canadians.

Canada Revenue AgencyAdjournment Proceedings

8:10 p.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I am extremely disappointed with the answer that I received this evening.

The government is just looking into what is being done in other countries with regard to the time frame for processing income tax objections when the minister promised that the job would be done by early 2017. It is very surprising to hear my colleague say today that she intends to resolve low-complexity objections in 180 days or less, while talking about efficiency and effectiveness.

I do not think that the average taxpayer who sends something in to the Canada Revenue Agency would agree that waiting 180 days to get an answer is acceptable, effective, or efficient. What is more, the government is admitting that it believes that this time frame is acceptable. In my opinion, it is not acceptable for taxpayers to have to wait 180 days before getting an answer from the Canada Revenue Agency.

I would like my colleague to provide a detailed explanation of what actions have been taken to date since the minister promised to get the job done and improve the time frame for the processing of income tax objections. What has been accomplished to date? I do not want her to tell me about what is in the works or being planned for the coming months. The minister promised to get the job done. When will the job actually be done?

Canada Revenue AgencyAdjournment Proceedings

8:10 p.m.

Liberal

Kamal Khera Liberal Brampton West, ON

Mr. Speaker, the agency is dedicated to providing Canadians with excellent service in every interaction they have with the CRA, including the resolution of an objection.

Our government is committed to providing real results to Canadians, which is why the CRA is starting to implement improvements to the program. Through improved processes and early communication with taxpayers, appeals officers will be able to efficiently process income tax objections in a timely manner.

CRA regularly reviews the way it does business to ensure that excellent service continues to be provided to Canadians. Ongoing improvements to the objection process are just one of the ways the CRA is delivering on its commitment to improved client service.

We understand more needs to be done and we are committed to doing that for all Canadians.

Canada Revenue AgencyAdjournment Proceedings

8:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 8:15 p.m.)