Murray Rankin

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, the number, of course, is between $5 billion and $7.8 billion lost annually.

Will the minister follow through on the 2011 platform commitment to double the annual TFSA contribution room in the next budget?

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, either the minister cannot say or will not say, but the answer, according to Statistics Canada, is that Canadian money stashed in 10 offshore tax havens hit $170 billion last year.

What is the estimated total amount of Canadian tax revenue lost to offshore tax havens every year?

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, the finance minister would know about unpaid taxes, but the answer the Auditor General reports is $29 billion as of March 31.

How much Canadian money was estimated to be held in offshore tax havens as of 2013?

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, the CRA website claims it is $35 billion and after a three-year effort, there is no national strategy to combat the underground economy.

As of the most recent publicly available assessment in 2012, what is the outstanding balance in undisputed unpaid taxes?

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance, what is the estimated total annual revenue lost to the underground economy?

[Privacy, May 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, given the way these Conservatives consistently mount personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with them, Canadians rightly want the personal information they provide to their government to be properly safeguarded. If there is a good reason for government to be sharing around people's personal information, it should make that case to a judge. Tax data is the second most sensitive kind of data that citizens share with their government, after health information.

Therefore, does the minister think it is appropriate to permit the sharing with police of deeply personal information without a warrant?

[Privacy, May 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, a most troubling clause is buried in the omnibus budget implementation bill. This clause allows the Canada Revenue Agency to forward, secretly and without a warrant, Canadians' tax information to the police.

If the government believes that Canadians' personal information needs to be sent to the police, it must follow the proper procedure and wait for a mandate to be issued.

Why is the minister trying to eliminate this important measure that protects Canadians' privacy?

[Fair Elections Act, May 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the way in which this bill was addressed in committee was shocking.

We are always told in this place that we should wait and do the hard slogging, the clause-by-clause analysis, and hear from expert witnesses at committee, because that is where we can improve the bill. That is the way in which it is supposed to work.

However, in my short experience in this place, amendments proposed by the opposition are virtually never accepted, because if it is not the government's idea, it cannot be a good one. That is reflected in spades in what happened in the procedure and House affairs committee during the process of this debate. We invited experts with different perspectives from all across the country to make their presentations. They spoke as one on the need to change key elements on this bill, and all of their efforts were in vain. Nothing was accepted. Half of the amendments never even got debated.

[Fair Elections Act, May 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his very thoughtful commentary and question.

The process that has accompanied this organic law that is one of the fundamentals of our Canadian democracy is nothing short of appalling. Of course, hundreds of academics from Canada and around the world called attention to that situation.

The record speaks for itself. We had time allocation, as it is called, imposed very early in the process. The NDP provided 256 questions along with our cross-country hearings, which of course the Conservatives chose not to support and indeed attempted to squelch. In addition to all of that, the filibustering that was necessary and the fact that half of the amendments were not even allowed to be debated in the committee speak volumes to the disdain with which the government addressed our opposition amendments to improve this bill in good faith. If it was not the Conservatives' idea, it could not be a good one, so the only amendments accepted in committee were those that dealt with grammar and the like. It is shocking.

[Fair Elections Act, May 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for her spirited and passionate presentation on the unfair elections act. I believe we are debating the amendment moved by the member for Toronto—Danforth in which he proposes that we decline to give third reading to this legislation. I entirely agree with my colleague.

By way of introduction, I would like to comment on the process and comment on the implications of this legislation for my riding of Victoria.

I am deeply proud of my fellow citizens in Victoria. I had a sign on the window of my office on the main street of Victoria asking people to come in and sign a petition registering their concern with this legislation. I can say without fear of contradiction that the number of people who came in was extraordinary, and they came from all political walks of life. Members of all political parties came in and expressed their disdain for this proposed suppression law that the bill clearly has become.

Progressive Conservatives such as David Crombie and Allan Gregg expressed their concern earlier with the bill, indicating that it was a blatant attempt to suppress votes. That was loud and clear in one of the meetings that was held in my riding. Business people, wealthy people, poor people, and people from all political parties expressed their deep concern over the bill.

I was very proud of the people of Victoria for speaking up against this atrocious legislation. As I said, people from all political parties and from all walks of life expressed their concern.

It was the elephant in the room when in question period the Minister of State for Democratic Reform could not bring himself to utter the words “Sheila Fraser”, who said that the bill was an attack on our democracy. That refusal to even acknowledge someone Canadians hold in such great esteem was an indication of what the Conservatives thought of her commentary. They then trivialized her, saying that she was being paid or something. Those statements were made to take away from the serious concerns that this great Canadian had expressed.

Our leading newspaper, The Globe and Mail, published five editorials in a row, ending with one that said “Kill the bill”. Newspapers across this country and speakers on the radio said the same thing in different ways in speaking to their parts of the country. It became clear to Canadians that it was not just the official opposition that was doing everything it could to stop the bill.

I am so proud of my colleague from Hamilton Centre, who filibustered in committee. I am proud of the enormous work that was done by the member for Toronto—Danforth and the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. This upheaval in Canada was astounding. Civil society, academics, people on the street, and people in all walks of life were rising up and saying this travesty must stop.

I was pleased that the government accepted some of the proposed amendments that were made by the official opposition. We made 100 of them. Of course, the Conservatives let their ideology undermine this once again, and they shut us down in committee with only half of our amendments debated, something that should cause Canadians deep concern. However, perhaps that is not surprising, given the track record of the Conservatives in breaking elections law, overspending, the in-and-out scheme, attempts to suppress opposition votes, and so forth.

For the Prime Minister to say that the Chief Electoral Officer was “wearing a jersey” was shocking to a lot of Canadians. This is an officer of Parliament who is only appointed after consultation with other parties in the House and who enjoys virtually the same kind of independence that judges do. The statement was shocking because the Chief Electoral Officer was only doing his job, and people understood that. He was trying to prosecute Conservatives for their rule-breaking. That was his job, but perhaps he did it too well, and that is why that attack was levelled against this officer of Parliament, a development that lot of us found very concerning.

The minister said this morning that the bill is widely supported by Canadians. He has not been to my riding of Victoria to take that position. If he had seen the people on the streets demonstrating against the bill, if he had come to a meeting I organized that had hundreds of people in attendance from all walks of life, he would not have said that.

The changes that were made, some of which I would like to comment on, are very good in some cases. I agree entirely with the minister's suggestion that the bill now incorporate advance rulings and legal interpretations that other parties could use as precedents. I salute that as an effective amendment and something that we should support.

However, I still do not understand the government's perspective on voter participation as it is reflected in this bill. We have a crisis in our democracy of young people not voting. It is a shocking statistic to see that two-thirds of people under the age of 30 do not bother to show up and vote, yet the effectiveness of this bill in trying to promote voting would be limited to high schools and elementary schools. What about the university sector? What about the outreach that the Chief Electoral Officer was trying to achieve? That seems to have been shut down in the face of what is our biggest problem, which is not voter fraud but voter participation. That is something that needs to be addressed, since the agency can only advertise the basics of the election. I am distressed that it continues to be a problem in this legislation.

The Chief Electoral Officer can suggest that MPs be suspended for disputes over election spending irregularities, but apparently now that can only happen when the entire appeal process has been exhausted. Therefore, even in cases of glaring, obvious errors and overspending problems, we presumably would have to wait until it got to the Supreme Court of Canada, which in some cases might mean the person would be elected for his or her entire term, given the way our appeal structure works. In at least some circumstances, that seems to be inappropriate indeed.

In his presentation, my colleague from Toronto—Danforth characterized this as a bad bill that is less bad now. I would say it is a terrible bill that is simply now a bad bill in light of the amendments.

As two prominent Progressive Conservatives, David Crombie and Allan Gregg, have said, this is a blatant effort to stack the deck for the Conservatives. I think Canadians understand that.

For example, the fundraising limits have been raised in this legislation. The fundraising limits now suggest that individual contributions would go from a $1,200 maximum to a $1,500 maximum. Clearly that would favour the party that receives the biggest contributions. That would be the Conservative Party. As well, it would allow candidates to contribute up to $5,000 to their own campaign. I wonder who that would favour. That would be the Conservatives.

Every NDP amendment to remove these provisions was categorically refused by the government. Those concerns are still with us.

Many speakers have talked about the unnecessary separation between the Commissioner of Canada Elections, Elections Canada, and the Chief Electoral Officer. As the minister said, there is administration and there is enforcement, but since the commissioner agreed with that and wanted it, it is hard for us to understand why that change was necessary. According to the old adage, “If it ain't broke, don't fix it”.

In addition, powers were also sought for the commissioner to compel witnesses, as in section 11 of the Competition Act and as is done in other provinces and other countries routinely. That was also sought by the commissioner; the government, of course, would have none of it and moved it outside of the Elections Canada apparatus. It now, at the last moment, has to change it to have information-sharing agreements to deal with the problem it created in the first place through an absolutely unnecessary and uncalled-for amendment.

In conclusion, I would support the amendment of the member for Toronto—Danforth that we decline to give third reading to this bill. I wish we were not in this state. I wish the government had not moved closure to limit debate on one of the most fundamental bills in our democracy, but here we are, and I sadly rise in utter opposition to this voter suppression legislation.