OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 042 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Wednesday, February 5, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES February 5, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 042 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 042 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 042 (Version officielle) 147 042 05 02 2014 2014/02/05 14:00:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 2 p.m. Prayers

Statements by Members (1400) [ English ] The Speaker : It being Wednesday, we will now have the singing of the national anthem led by the hon. member for Bourassa . [Members sang the national anthem] STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Statements by Members [ English ] Typhoon Haiyan Relief Fundraiser Mr. Corneliu Chisu (Pickering—Scarborough East, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Harmony Martial Arts and Fitness Centre in my riding organized a relief fundraiser on November 24 last year in support of the victims of super Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines.

The owners, Helen and Raymond Ata, along with Margarita and George Gonzales and other members of the club, worked diligently to plan this event. They encouraged families, friends, and members of the Philippine community to come and join them to help the victims of this natural disaster. They asked everyone to open their hearts and give generously. Throughout the day, people had time for socializing and enjoying the music, food, each other's company, and a live auction. All of the auction items were donated by generous members, friends, and their families. The event was a great success.

A total of $9,000 was raised, which was matched by the government dollar for dollar, for a total amount of $18,000, which will be donated through Ancop International Canada. I take this opportunity to congratulate my constituents for their generous gesture and giving hearts.

[ Translation ] Winter Olympic Games Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games start on Friday. This is an opportunity to support sports and our athletes, who have worked so hard to make it to Sochi. Everyone can count on Jean-Luc Brassard, a great source of pride for my region, to motivate our Canadian athletes. He won gold in freestyle skiing at the Lillehammer Games and has been named Canada's assistant chef de mission. I would also like to point out that two other people from my riding of Salaberry-de-Valleyfield are part of Team Canada.

A young woman by the name of Mélodie Daoust, who is 22 years old, was named player of the year at the university level and will play on the women's hockey team in their quest for another gold medal. I also invite my colleagues to keep an eye out for Corporal Dominic Larocque on the ice in Sochi. Injured in Afghanistan in 2007, he is looking to win gold with the sledge hockey team. Mélodie, Jean-Luc and Dominic, I wish you every success. Your perseverance and dedication are an example for all. The people of Salaberry-de-Valleyfield are behind you all the way. Good luck.

(1405) [ English ] Ukraine Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, today Canada and the free world watch in shock and disbelief at the tragic events taking place in Ukraine. Ukrainian Canadians from all over Canada, including in my home riding of Oshawa, stand in solidarity with people facing violence and intimidation at the hands of their own government. Canada and Ukraine share common bonds. Ukrainians played a pivotal role in shaping our great nation, especially in my home riding of Oshawa. Canada was the first western nation to recognize Ukrainian independence in 1991.

Ukrainians remember all too well their anti-democratic Soviet past, and they have no desire to go back down that road. Ukrainians have made it known that they want to stand with the western democratic free world. I call on the Ukrainian government to end the violence and intimidation and to respect the democratic rights of its citizens.

Fogo Island Inn Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to rise and congratulate the Fogo Island Inn, on beautiful Fogo Island, for winning the National Cultural Tourism award at the Canadian Tourism Awards on December 3. In Canada, tourism is an $82-billion industry that generates $17 billion in exports every year. This industry employs over 600,000 creative Canadians, like the team at Fogo Island Inn, and work hard to make Canada an exciting and welcoming country.

The Fogo Island Inn was created by the Shorefast Foundation, a registered Canadian charity, though the beneficial owners are the people of Fogo Island and Change Islands. All operational surpluses belong to the community itself. From its very inception, the inn was conceived as a place that fortifies local culture and helps articulate the identity of place. Congratulations, Fogo Island Inn.

Democratic Reform Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, on December 3, last year, the reform act was introduced, a bill that offers realistic and real reforms to strengthen Parliament. The reform act proposes three simple reforms to strengthen the role of the people's elected representatives by empowering members of Parliament and giving them the tools they need to better represent their constituents in Ottawa. Since its introduction, there has been unprecedented public support for the bill. Here is just one example.

The Canadian Association of Retired Persons, CARP, surveyed some of its 300,000 members across Canada and asked them what they thought of the reform act. Seventy-five per cent of them said they support the reform act, 72% said the proposals would significantly change Parliament, and 62% said the proposals would improve accountability. This poll and others like it make it clear that Canadians want to see parliamentary reform. The reform act is the vehicle for that reform.

Canada Post Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, I hosted two well-attended town hall meetings on Canada Post's ill-conceived plan to end door-to-door mail delivery. It is obvious that the Conservative government and Canada Post's well-paid executives do not understand the enormous negative consequences of their plan for a large number of vulnerable Canadians. A woman who attended one of my meetings shared a compelling personal story. Her 28-year-old daughter is severely autistic and is unable to communicate verbally.

For this young woman, door-to-door mail delivery really is a lifeline. She not only interacts with her letter carrier on a daily basis, an important part of her day, but she receives, through the mail, twice-a-month therapy resources for her condition. Unfortunately, neither this woman nor her family have the ability to hire someone to collect these necessary resources from the community mailbox. This is just one example of what would be lost with the end of a service that Canadians like this young woman and her family rely upon.

By allowing Canada Post to go ahead with its decision, the Conservative government is turning its back on these Canadians.

(1410) Winter Olympic Games Mr. John Carmichael (Don Valley West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in less than 48 hours, the eyes of the world will be on Sochi, as Canada's best compete in the 22nd winter Olympic games. On behalf of all residents of Don Valley West , I wish to recognize and congratulate eight Torontonians as they compete for gold as members of Canada's winter Olympics team. Michael Lambert will compete in two alpine snowboarding events, while Katie Tsuyuki will represent Canada in women's half-pipe. Lenny Valjas will compete in cross-country skiing, and Philip Brown will compete in alpine skiing events.

In figure skating, Patrick Chan will compete in the men's singles, Dylan Moscovitch will compete in the pairs event, and Piper Gilles and Paul Poirier in ice dance. NHL superstar P.K. Subban will represent his hometown of Toronto as he plays on the Canadian men's hockey team. As a former board member of the Canadian Olympic Committee, I truly could not be more proud of these young athletes as they demonstrate excellence to the world. I wish them, and indeed all of Team Canada, the greatest of success in Sochi.

Mining Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Cariboo-Chilcotin area of B.C. has been devastated by the mountain pine beetle plague. Jobs in the forest industry and related industries have been lost, and the economy has suffered a huge blow in Williams Lake and 100 Mile House. Sawmills have cut back on their operations, businesses have closed, and people have left their homeland because there are no jobs. Now we are presented with a once-in-a-generation opportunity to restore a vibrant economy to this area.

We must not miss this opportunity to allow the New Prosperity gold mine to move forward to the provincial permitting stage. I, my colleague from Kamloops, and 85% of the people of the Cariboo-Chilcotin call on this government to allow this project to move forward. The government can do that by attaching a list of conditions that would satisfy the mitigation of environmental impacts. We cannot, we must not, miss this opportunity.

[ Translation ] 2014 World Congress of Acadians Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I urge you and all parliamentarians to block off August 8 to 24 so you can all attend the fifth World Congress of Acadians. This celebration of Acadian pride will take place in Madawaska, New Brunswick, Aroostook, Maine, and Témiscouata in my riding. The cultural spokesperson for the event will be none other than Roch Voisine.

A variety of gatherings will take place during the congress: the Grand rassemblement jeunesse for youth, the Women's Summit, and most importantly, the family reunions that 122 families have already signed up for, including the Caron family, of course. I would also like to salute the hard work of Témiscouata's board of directors, Guylaine Sirois, Serge Fortin, Marielle Landry, Denis Landry and Samuel Moreau, and the tireless work of the president of the congress, Émilien Nadeau, who is from Dégelis.

I would also like to thank the members of the board of directors from New Brunswick and Maine and all of the volunteers and organizers. I hope that everyone will join us in celebrating Acadian heritage in the heart of Acadia of the lands and forests.

[ English ] Veterans Mr. Parm Gill (Brampton—Springdale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government is dedicated to ensuring that veterans and their families have the support they need, when and where they need it, from coast to coast to coast. I would like to share one of the many letters recently received by the Minister of Veterans Affairs : It states: Dear Minister [...] I am a Veteran of the...Royal Canadian Navy. I have struggled with hearing problems since serving....

By last year, my hearing loss had become so pronounced, I could no longer hear birdsong at all. [I visited the Veterans Affairs Office in Edmonton]...upon arrival we were...treated like Royalty! There we completed a[n]...interview and presented the Hearing Tests from an Audiologist.... We mailed the completed forms in late November. ...we received a phone call from Veterans Affairs to inform us that my application had been approved, that [benefits would be paid] for the hearing loss...plus the hearing aids would be paid by Veterans Affairs!

Minister [...] I have to tell you that we expected nothing in all these years since my service in the early 1960's.... Kudos to Veterans Affairs! They have been amazing.... Gratefully Yours, [A Canadian Veteran]

Dr. Garson Romalis Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour the memory of Dr. Garson Romalis, who passed away on January 30. Dr. Romalis was a courageous champion of women's reproductive rights and an ardent supporter and provider of safe abortions. He received his medical degree from UBC in 1962, prior to the legalization of abortion in Canada. At that time, he treated many women suffering from septic shock in the aftermath of “back-alley abortions”. After Canada's abortion laws changed, Dr.

Romalis built his practice on the belief that women have the right to choose when and if they become pregnant. Dr. Romalis survived two violent terrorist attacks in Vancouver in 1994 and 2000. Despite these attempts on his life, he remained steadfast in his work and belief in a woman's right to choose. His deep compassion and care have helped countless women and saved lives. New Democrats offer our deepest sympathy to his family, and we thank them for sharing this great doctor and his life's work with Canadians.

(1415) Consumer Protection Mr. Daryl Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we have taken decisive action to put families first by cutting taxes an incredible 160 times. That means over $3,000 more every year for the average Canadian family because of our government. Sadly, the New Democrats want to play Big Brother when it comes to consumer needs. Their plan includes creating more bureaucracy, a whole department to monitor and dictate what is best for Canadians. Not only that, but the NDP has voted against all of the following consumer-protection measures since 2006.

The New Democrats voted against protecting consumers with new credit card rules that will require consent for credit limit increases, against bringing in a code of conduct for the credit and debit card industry to help small businesses deal with unfair practices, against requiring greater disclosures of mortgage repayment charges, against making mortgage insurance more transparent and understandable, and against banning unsolicited credit card cheques. While the opposition parties vote against measures to help consumers, our government has acted and will deliver for Canadians.

[ Translation ] Carbon Monoxide Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, an incident last December involving a building in the riding of Ottawa—Vanier could have been fatal had it not been for the rapid and judicious response of the medical staff at the Montfort Hospital, namely Dr. Charles-Antoine Breau, Geneviève Falardeau, Yan Bruneau and Marjolaine Eckert. Yesterday, in partnership with the hospital, the federal government announced an initiative to raise awareness about the dangers of carbon monoxide. I congratulate the government and the hospital on that initiative.

However, I cannot resist pointing out the irony of the fact that a government that includes three former ministers from the Mike Harris government, which wanted to close the Montfort Hospital, would now choose to use it to launch such initiatives. It is also interesting that the Conservatives did not have the courtesy to inform my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa South , the riding where the announcement was made, or myself, since that hospital is located in my riding. This, of course, comes as no surprise to this side of the House, as the Conservatives have simply remained true to form.

[ English ] Special Olympics Ms. Wai Young (Vancouver South, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, with the 2014 Winter Olympics just around the corner, Canadians will be watching with pride as our athletes represent Canada on the world stage. I would like to take a moment to speak of another source of pride for many: our Special Olympians and Special Olympics Canada. For those not familiar, Special Olympics Canada enriches the lives of Canadians with intellectual disabilities through sport, including 37,000 athletes who are supported by 17,000 volunteers and 13,000 trained coaches.

This is why I am proud to note that our government will now provide ongoing long-term support for Special Olympics Canada, with $1 million in annual funding. This will maintain the organization's funding from Sport Canada at more than $2.8 million. This stable funding will help our Special Olympians get the support they need to excel in their sport and achieve their dreams. This is why I look forward to this summer's Special Olympics Canada Summer Games, which will be held July 8-12 in my city, Vancouver.

[ Translation ] The Senate Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the police have laid charges against Mac Harb and Patrick Brazeau and are continuing to investigate Duffy, Wallin, Gerstein and Stewart Olsen. The Conservatives appointed fraudsters who were not even living in the provinces they were supposed to represent, but they say that it is not their fault. While the police are busy dealing with a number of criminal senators, the Liberal leader is trying to fool everyone by putting lipstick on a pig. We no longer have Liberal senators. We have senators who are Liberal. What a change.

Those who have seen the Elvis Gratton movies from Quebec will remember the main character saying that he is not a Quebecker, he is a French-Canadian, French-speaking Quebecker. These so-called independent senators are going to end up making piles of money campaigning for their party, all at taxpayers' expense. The Conservatives and the Liberals defended their fraudster senators. “Harb will be welcome back in caucus when he has paid back his expense claims”, said the Liberal leader. “Brazeau is working hard in the Senate”, said the Prime Minister .

Canadians deserve better than the lack of judgment coming from these two party leaders who are defending an undemocratic institution.

(1420) [ English ] Democratic Reform Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday the democratic reform minister introduced a sweeping bill designed to protect the fairness of federal elections. The fair elections act would make it harder to break elections law. It closes loopholes to big money, imposes new penalties on political impostors who make rogue calls, and empowers law enforcement with sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand. I believe it is important to share the positive feedback we are hearing regarding this bill.

The Canadian National Institute for the Blind said, “Voting is a democratic right for all Canadians”, and, “We are happy to have the opportunity to work hand in hand with government representatives to increase accessibility and awareness of election amongst the blind and partially sighted.” The former CEO of Elections Canada, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, said that if he were dealing with a masters student, he would give it an A minus, and that “Overall, it looks like a good bill”. I am pleased to be working with the minister on this legislation and look forward to debating it here in the House.

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions [ English ] Democratic Reform Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister agree that impersonating an election officer to induce a person not to vote is already an offence under Canadian law? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, obviously I will leave the details of the fair elections act to the minister.

However, I would say that what the law before us does, the fair elections act, is it looks at various offences, strengthens the hand of law enforcement in that regard, and provides new tools for use when people do break the law or clearly intend to break the law. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, are we to understand that the Prime Minister cannot tell the Canadian people that voter suppression and impersonation of an electoral officer are already illegal in Canada?

Could that be because yesterday's supposed changes are more about giving cover to what the Conservative Party did in 2011 than anything else? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as the court ruled, the Conservative Party did no such thing. On the contrary, we are aware, as many people are aware, of some clearly inappropriate and probably illegal activities in Guelph. We want to make sure that those type of activities are not allowed to happen again and that they are thoroughly investigated and prosecuted. [ Translation ] Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, what is clear is that the Conservative Party made thousands of fraudulent calls. In at least 56 of the ridings involved, nearly 1,000 formal complaints have been filed. Can the Prime Minister stand and state unequivocally that the Conservatives' voter suppression tactics in 2011 were, and still are, illegal in Canada? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the NDP and their allies have brought those accusations before the courts, but they were dismissed. [ English ] Of course, nothing should be clearer from the truth.

What the NDP fails to accept is that the reason it lost the election is Canadians recognize that when it comes to their vital economic interests, their jobs and their economic futures only one party stands up for that. That is the Conservative Party. As long as the NDP does not get that, we will be— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Speaker : Order, please. The hon. Leader of the Opposition. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, “clearer from the truth”; now there is one for the prime ministerial archives. [ Translation ] In 2011, about 100,000 Canadians who did not have ID, including aboriginal peoples and seniors, were able to vote if someone vouched for them. Exactly how many people who were not entitled to vote were prosecuted during the last election? We know that 100,000 were able to vote. How many of those were actually illegal votes? Two or three? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to note that this proposal, the fair elections act, arms Elections Canada with methods of providing more information about when and where the voting is taking place and about the voting process. Elections Canada needs to be able to do its work. This legislation helps it do just that. (1425) [ English ] Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, do the Conservatives really want to help people to vote? The bill is more about suppressing the vote than helping people to vote.

Elections Canada has confirmed that there are no irregularities with the overwhelming majority of people who vote with the help of the current vouching system. If there are problems with the system, why not fix them? Why is the Prime Minister removing tools that actually help people to vote? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the opposite is true. The fair elections act lays out specifically the jobs of Elections Canada to make sure it informs people, where, when, and how to vote, and what ID specifically to use at a vote. Many of these reforms are long overdue.

They will sharpen law enforcement, strengthen the reach of law enforcement personnel, and correct many of the deficiencies that were well documented in the review of the last election campaign. As long as the NDP sinks into conspiracy theories and rejects the verdict of Canadians in the last election, we will be happy to receive continued mandates from them.

Taxation Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, last year's budget introduced millions in new taxes on imports, ranging from saris to wigs for cancer patients. With the lower dollar, these tax increases on Canadians will cost us even more. Will the government repeal its tax increases on middle-class Canadians in next week's budget? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, of course, nothing would be further from the truth.

What the government did do is to make sure that Canadian producers were on a level playing field with some specific countries, emerging economies that are very powerful economies that had special tax preferences. Obviously, that is not appropriate. Our government remains committed to balancing the budget and rejecting all of the various tax increases proposed by the hon. member and his party. Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, a math teacher should not have to explain to an economist the impact on import tariffs when the dollar falls. [ Translation ] Last year's budget did nothing for the middle class. Instead, it contained absurd taxes on imports such as tricycles and toothbrushes. The lower dollar makes these tax hikes on imports even more expensive. Will the government eliminate these tax increases for the middle class in next week's budget? [ English ] Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I certainly look forward to seeing the day where the leader of the Liberal Party does explain his positions to various economists. [ Translation ] The Liberal Party regularly proposes tax increases that affect Canadian consumers and taxpayers. That is not something that our party supports. The Liberal Party defends special exemptions for Chinese industries. That is not acceptable.

[ English ] The Budget Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the IMF reports that our economy grew only 1.6% last year. It also projects that Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Norway, and the U.S. will all grow faster than us this year. This Prime Minister has the worst economic record on growth since R.B. Bennett in the depths of the great depression. After eight years of anemic growth, will we see anything new in next week's budget to help Canada's middle class? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, Canadians and economic experts around the world, including the OECD and the IMF, recognize that Canada has gone through the recession and come out of the recession with among the strongest growth and employment rates and records in the developed world. The prospects for continued growth going forward, according to all of these experts, are very strong and the government is, in almost every case, following the various recommendations that these organizations suggest. On all these things, I am sure I could suggest any number of people who could walk the leader of the Liberal Party through it.

(1430) Ethics Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, a year ago in the House, the Prime Minister said, “Mr. Speaker, all senators conform to the residency requirements” in the Constitution. That, of course, now, is absolutely false. The audits of Senators Wallin, Duffy, and others made it clear that some senators never met the requirements in the first place. Would the Prime Minister now admit what every Canadians knows, that his senators never met the residency requirements to begin with? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, as I have said repeatedly, there are various standards that have to be met to be appointed to the Senate. It is a matter of fact, as we know, that members of Parliament in both Houses more often than not maintain two residences. The fact that a member maintains two residences is not at issue here. What is at issue is the improper, and in some cases fraudulent, claiming of expenses. The government has been very clear that is not acceptable, that there would be consequences. Those senators are now seeing those consequences. [ Translation ] Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, the problem is that, according to the police, Nigel Wright informed the Prime Minister that the very scheme used by Mike Duffy was also being used by others, such as Senators Brazeau, Wallin, Stewart-Olsen, Kinsella and Ringuette. Why are some being charged while others are not? Why is there a double standard? What is the explanation for that? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is the RCMP's responsibility to conduct the investigations. The RCMP has been clear about who is and who is not being investigated.

Obviously, what the Leader of the Opposition has said is not factual. [ English ] Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, actually, it is there in the police report. The Prime Minister was warned by Nigel Wright that other senators did not meet the residency requirements, so why did the Prime Minister insist that they did? The answer to that, we suspect, is also in the police report. Is it because that was part of his deal with Mike Duffy? Yes, or no? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, clearly what the Leader of the Opposition says are not the facts.

The RCMP has been very clear in terms of the matter between Mr. Duffy and Mr. Wright that I was not informed of that. The RCMP has been crystal clear on that.

Democratic Reform Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, 100,000 people had their votes vouched for in the last campaign. This includes aboriginal citizens, low-income people, new Canadians, students, and people with disabilities. The question is, why is the government making it harder for these Canadians to exercise their right to vote? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we are not; we are making it easier, by requiring Elections Canada to advertise to these very people which types of identification are required to vote.

The Leader of the Opposition gave false information earlier when he said that Elections Canada indicated there were no mistakes. In fact, according to Elections Canada's own commissioned report, there was a 25% error rate. The audit showed that errors are made in the majority of cases that require the use of non-regular processes. This is such a non-regular process. The reality is that vouching is not safe; it is not secure. After the fair elections act is passed, it will not be allowed. Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, the Supreme Court said there was no evidence that any of those irregularities occurred with people who did not have the right to vote, so this is an absolute red herring. On another issue, the elections commissioner is moving to the Director of Public Prosecutions and away from the Chief Electoral Officer. The Chief Electoral Officer is appointed to and is responsible to Parliament, but the DPP is appointed by the Attorney General. Why is the government removing parliamentary oversight from the elections commissioner? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I recommend that the hon. member read the Director of Public Prosecutions Act. If he did, he would know that he and every single member of the House has the responsibility to vote on removing a Director of Public Prosecutions. The government cannot fire him by itself. That is the responsibility of Parliament. In fact, his very appointment has to be approved by a committee that has members from each political party, two senior public servants, and a member of the law society, and then his appointment is approved by an all-party committee at Parliament.

That is accountability and it is also independence. (1435) [ Translation ] Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform told the House that one of the reasons why people do not vote is because they do not have information. If that is the case, why does his new bill prevent Elections Canada from advertising and giving voters information? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats should read the bill. We are doing the exact opposite.

We are requiring that Elections Canada advertise so that Canadians have information on how, where and when to vote, as well as the different options and the types of identification required to vote. We are creating a requirement. Furthermore, we will require that Elections Canada inform disabled people about the special tools that will be available to them to help them vote. Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this bill also states that fundraising from individuals who have donated to a political party in the past will no longer be calculated as an election expense.

Could the minister explain why he inserted this measure that clearly puts the Conservative Party at an advantage? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the rule will apply to all parties. [ English ] The reality is that campaigning is distinct from raising funds to run a campaign. We are acknowledging that parties have a responsibility to reach out over 10 million square kilometres across this vast country of ours, and that requires them to raise money. However, the act of raising money is not synonymous with the act of actually spending it on a campaign.

Therefore, those costs associated with fundraising will be excluded from the spending cap under the Canada Elections Act. [ Translation ] Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the power to compel witnesses to appear is a right that even parliamentary committees have. However, the Conservatives have refused to include this right in their reform of the Elections Act. That is a strange coincidence since we know that the Conservatives have refused to co-operate with Elections Canada on the investigation into the fraudulent calls.

Why have they refused to include the power to compel witnesses to appear in the reform of the Elections Act? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, witnesses are already required to testify in court once formal allegations have been made. That is how our legal system works. Elections Canada has the same investigative powers as police services. Those powers are in place, and we will increase them by introducing a new penalty for those who obstruct an investigation or provide inaccurate information to investigators. [ English ] Ms.

Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Elections Canada has been working to get people without fixed addresses registered and voting. It has been doing outreach to young people and engaging first nations communities to increase voter turnout, but the Conservatives new bill slams the door on all of that very important work. The minister claims his bill would target special interests, but in reality it would reduce Elections Canada's powers and remove its ability to do public education. Why? Does the minister believe that Elections Canada is now a special interest? Hon.

Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, half of youth in this country are unaware that they can vote by three different methods prior to election day. That numbers 73% among aboriginal youth. If a youth is busy on election day with studies or work, that individual is not even aware of the other opportunities to cast a ballot. The way to fix that problem is to focus Elections Canada's advertising on providing people with information on when they can vote: advance ballots, special vote, voting by mail.

Even if they were busy on election day, younger people would have an opportunity to cast a ballot, if they were aware of these extra methods. The fair elections act would ensure they get that information.

(1440) The Budget Ms. Chrystia Freeland (Toronto Centre, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, this month, IMF economists warned that the declining competitiveness of Canada's non-energy exports is “something that concerns us”. The IMF pointed to a widening productivity gap that has “eroded Canada's external competitiveness, particularly in...manufacturing”. Middle-class Canadians know this. They are feeling the effects in their paycheques. Will next week's budget finally do something to address these problems and help Canada's struggling middle class? Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, thanks to Canada's economic action plan, Canada has enjoyed the strongest economic performance, both during the recession and after, in the recovery. Over one million net new jobs have been created in this country, nearly 90% are full-time and 80% in the private sector. Both the IMF and the OECD project that Canada will be among the strongest economies in the G7 in this upcoming year. [ Translation ] Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the International Monetary Fund has warned us that Canadians should expect to see little economic growth.

Young Canadians have 264,000 fewer jobs than before the recession. The economic recovery does not apply to young people. An empty budget will not solve the problem. Will the government finally include a jobs plan for young Canadians in next week's budget? [ English ] Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on what matters most to Canadians: jobs and economic growth. Under the action plan taken by our Conservative government, Canada will continue to have one of the lowest youth unemployment rates in the G7.

In fact, since 2006, our government has helped 2.1 million youth obtain skills, training, and jobs. The answer is in education. The answer is in training. The answer is in skills. This government understands it. This government will continue to support jobs and growth. Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, last year's budget launched a phony jobs grant that still does not exist. It wasted millions on pointless government advertising. It cut services to veterans and vulnerable Canadians. It increased taxes on the middle class, payrolls, consumer goods, small business owners, and credit unions.

It produced the worst job creation since the recession, and economic growth was down from the year before, which was down from the year before that, which was down from the year before that. Is there anything the government plans to do differently this year? Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we will continue in the same direction we have been going. We will continue to build jobs. We will continue to help— Some hon. members: Oh, oh. The Speaker : Order, please. The hon. Minister of State has the floor. Mr. Kevin Sorenson : Mr.

Speaker, we will continue to push forward with skills training and making certain we are moving young people ahead into a position where they can find a job when they leave school. We also realize that the Liberal way of increasing taxes is not the direction we will go. We will keep taxes down, build jobs, and do what is right for this economy. [ Translation ] Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the government's response is obviously “no”. Economic growth has stalled. Nearly 1.4 million Canadians are unemployed. Last year, barely 5,000 full-time jobs were created in the entire country.

Instead of tabling another austerity budget that will eliminate tens of thousands of jobs, will the Conservatives finally encourage job creation by proposing a tax credit for businesses that hire young people and by reinstating the eco-energy retrofit program? [ English ] Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this government has the best job creation in the G7. Our government will continue to be focused on what matters to Canadians, and that is jobs; that is making certain they are prepared, going forward with economic growth.

Even though the global economy remains fragile, which we have said from the very beginning of the recession—that the recovery is fragile, especially in the United States and Europe—our economic policies have helped protect Canada. Over a million new jobs have been created. We will continue to bring forward progressive programs that build jobs—

(1445) The Speaker : The hon. member for Parkdale—High Park. Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the reality is that Conservatives' economic mismanagement is raising red flags around the globe. The IMF is now raising serious concerns about Canada's investment levels and our slumping exports. It is sounding the alarm on escalating household debt that could “amplify” any economic downturn. Will the Conservatives listen to the NDP and use their budget to get household debt under control by supporting job creation and by cracking down on things like payday lenders? Hon.

Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, every year the NDP demands that we raise taxes and spend, spend, spend. Again the answer this year is no, no, no. With economic action plan 2014, we will continue to create jobs and growth for all Canadians while keeping taxes low. We will have a balanced budget in 2015. We are building toward a balanced budget, despite the NDP's demands to raise taxes and spend, spend, spend.

National Defence Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, apparently it has taken the Conservatives eight years to realize that their so-called military procurement strategy is nothing but a boondoggle. From the F-35s to the Cyclone helicopters to the close-combat vehicles, the Conservatives have left a trail of delayed, over-budget, and underperforming equipment for our military. Today's announcement now spreads oversight of this mess over four ministers.

Can the Minister of National Defence explain how more bureaucracy with no single line of accountability will do anything to fix the Conservatives' abysmal procurement record? Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in fact, the opposite is true. We have had several successful military procurements, including heavy-lift aircraft, the LAVs, the main battle tanks, new heavy artillery, unmanned air surveillance capability, and many more.

What we are doing now is making sure that, going forward with the new Canada procurement strategy, we are going to maximize benefits for Canada while creating jobs and supporting Canadian industry in its exports of Canadian defence products. [ Translation ] Ms. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it took eight years and the Department of National Defence had to be put under supervision, but the Conservatives are finally realizing that their military procurement process is a failure.

Our troops need the proper equipment to carry out their missions, and Canadians want to be sure that resources are not being wasted. The Conservatives have clearly demonstrated that they are incapable of making either of those things happen. Since the F-35 procurement secretariat has not yielded any results, why do the Conservatives think that a new secretariat and more red tape are a viable solution? Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, that is not at all true. We have procured helicopters, LAVs and trucks for all of our troops.

However, the NDP voted against all of these procurements that support our military. With the new defence procurement strategy, we are making procurement more efficient while supporting Canadian industries at the best price for taxpayers. [ English ] Mr. Lawrence Toet (Elmwood—Transcona, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, after a decade of darkness from the previous Liberal government, our Conservative government is making unprecedented investments in our Canadian Armed Forces to ensure that our men and women in uniform have the equipment they need to get the job done.

Our government previously committed to leveraging that military spending to benefit Canadian companies while creating high-skilled, high-paying jobs right here at home. Can the Minister of Public Works and Government Services please inform the House of what our government is doing to meet this commitment?

(1450) Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, today the Minister of National Defence and I were very proud to launch Canada's new defence procurement strategy. This strategy is about getting the equipment that our men and women in uniform need at the best value for taxpayers while at the same time maximizing benefits to our Canadian economy and to Canadian industries here at home. It is about doing more for our armed forces, more for Canadian jobs, and more for continued prosperity. That is what we pledged to Canadians and that is what we are doing.

Intergovernmental Affairs Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, behind the grim job statistics are real people struggling to find work, yet Conservatives want to claw back $300 million that provinces use to help the most vulnerable people get jobs and get back on their feet. Conservatives proposed an unworkable plan and then spent $2.5 million advertising it. When will the government finally drop the pretense and concede that it cannot run roughshod over the provinces and our most vulnerable workers? Hon.

Jason Kenney (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I had a very good discussion with the provincial counterparts yesterday, and we continue to have fruitful discussions about how to implement a job grant, which is supported by the Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, the Canadian Construction Association, Information Technology Association of Canada, the Canadian Welding Bureau, Engineers Canada, the Progressive Contractors Association of Canada, Polytechnics Canada, the Association of Canadian Community Colleges, and on and on.

Why is the NDP against common sense? [ Translation ] Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' approach has been counterproductive from the start. They decided to confront the provinces instead of consult them. That led to delays, and workers are paying the price. I hope they will learn from their mistakes. Worker training is important for economic growth and development. Will the minister accept the provinces' counter-offer? Hon. Jason Kenney (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, we have had good talks with the provinces about the Canada job grant, which has the support of Polytechnics Canada, the National Association of Career Colleges, the Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, the Canadian Construction Association, the Information Technology Association of Canada, the Canadian Welding Bureau, Engineers Canada, the Progressive Contractors Association of Canada and many other organizations.

These organizations know that employers have to be involved in training the workforce.

Pensions Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the whole issue of old age security is another example of the Conservatives' refusal to work with the provinces. The Bank of Montreal just said that 89% of Canadians are going to depend on the Canada pension plan and QPP and that the provinces and experts agree that those plans need to be improved. Instead of sitting back and doing nothing, will the Minister of Finance work with us to give all Canadians retirement security? [ English ] Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, Canadians simply do not want to pay higher taxes, whether that is payroll taxes or any kind of taxes. That is why we brought forward ways in which we can help them save. We have brought forward ideas like pension income splitting. We have brought forward pooled registered pension plans and tax-free savings accounts that are now benefiting more than nine million Canadians. Despite the NDP's reckless, high-tax plans, we continue to take action to put more money back into the pockets of Canadians. We are going to continue to do that. Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, let us get back to reality. The Bank of Montreal reports that fully one-third of Canadian seniors are planning to rely on the Canada pension plan and the QPP in their retirement. That is going to be around $600 a month. Let us face it; seniors cannot retire on about $600 a month. It is just not on. The provinces, the economists, and the experts agree that increasing the CPP is the most practical and the most reliable way to ensure Canadians have enough to retire. When will the minister pull his head out of the sand?

(1455) Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, again, Canadians simply do not want to pay higher CPP payroll taxes. We have heard this from Canadians. We have heard it from small business. We have heard it from owners of small businesses. We have heard it from provinces. The NDP's plan to double CPP would kill up to 70,000 jobs and cost a typical Canadian household as much as $2,600 per year. In this fragile economy, Canadians simply cannot afford the NDP's high taxes and high spin.

National Defence Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, after years of insisting everything was fine, the Conservatives, today, finally admitted their record of economic incompetence on defence procurement, and they sidelined the Minister of National Defence . Since 2006, the Conservatives have bungled every military equipment competition they have touched. That is eight lost years, lost jobs, and lost economic opportunities. Worse still, Canadian Forces members have been betrayed. Given this record of failure, how can the minister pretend that rearranging the deck chairs will save this ship?

Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member forgets her history. It was her Liberal government that cancelled the EH-101 contracts to replace our aging Sea Kings. That was 20 years ago. It had 13 years in power. There was a 10-year decade of darkness when it came to supplying the military with the equipment it needs. That is what happened under the Liberals. We had a program. We have had several successful procurements, including heavy-lift aircraft, LAVs, new heavy artillery, heavy-lift helicopters, and many more.

Now we are going forward with a new defence procurement strategy that will benefit our men and women in uniform while also maximizing benefits to Canadian industry.

Democratic Reform Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Chief Electoral Officer asked that the elections commissioner be given the power to apply to a judge to compel the provision of information relevant to an investigation, and the commissioner agreed, of course. Despite what he said earlier, why would they be asking if they had that power already. Conservative stonewalling is the single biggest issue here. The minister would know this if he had really consulted this past summer about this bill he has brought forward to the House.

Will the minister support the Liberal amendment to give the commissioner this particular power so that he will actually have some real teeth? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, judges can already compel testimony. It is called a subpoena. That happens all the time and is a regular course in matters of law enforcement. He would know that if he watched any number of television shows involving policing.

The reality is that the elections commissioner currently has all the same investigative powers of police officers who are investigating the most serious violent, heinous crimes. We are giving new powers and sharper teeth to the commissioner, and that will help improve law enforcement.

[ Translation ] Quebec Bridge Mr. Denis Blanchette (Louis-Hébert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, the Conservatives have a habit of abandoning Quebec's regions. This is particularly true of the Quebec City region. When the Prime Minister goes to Quebec City tomorrow, he will have the opportunity to admire the magnificent architecture of the Quebec Bridge. His government has spent nearly $400,000 in legal fees regarding that bridge, rather than investing in its maintenance.

Will his government stop the legal battle, which is not achieving anything, and invest money in this infrastructure that is so important to the region? [ English ] Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated in the House before, the Quebec Bridge that he refers to is actually owned by CN, which has the responsibility to maintain it. We have already inspected the track, as we should, and it is safe. However, CN is not living up to its end of the bargain. That is why we are in court. We are protecting taxpayers' dollars.

[ Translation ] Health Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, once the Prime Minister has crossed the Quebec Bridge in our fair city, perhaps he will see the cloud of nickel dust coming from the Port of Québec. By the way, that port is the responsibility of his Minister of Transport . If he is an observant person, he will see the cloud settling on top of the people of Limoilou and causing health problems for my constituents.

Does the Prime Minister intend to take the issue of public health seriously during his trip to Quebec City or is he just going there for another photo op? (1500) [ English ] Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the Port of Québec is an arm's-length organization and is responsible for the leasing of land in and around the Port of Québec. Indeed, it is a great responsibility that it has because it increases the economic viability of this great city and does great things to increase the amount of jobs there.

In this case, the Port of Québec is working with its tenant to ensure that it is respecting the will of the community and working as best it can with the Ministry of the Environment on the matter, and that is what we expect them to do.

Telecommunications Mr. Mike Wallace (Burlington, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, over the last 20 years, wireless services have grown into something Canadians rely on daily. As a result, we are seeing new cell towers being constructed in our communities. Their placement in my riding has been a very divisive issue. I believe Canadians deserve a say on how and where new cell tower locations are identified. Can the Minister of Industry please tell the House what our government is doing to ensure that local voices are heard? Hon. James Moore (Minister of Industry, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, there are over 18,000 cell towers all across this country. Four hundred new ones were built last year, and far too often those cell providers are not doing direct consultation with communities. The announcement that our government made today will force cell providers to engage directly with everyday Canadians and consult directly with municipalities all across the country before cell towers are built. We want cell towers to be built, but not without due consultation directly with Canadians, directly with communities.

We want Canadians to have the best technology possible and high download rates, and all that, but of course it has to be done with the consent of everyday Canadians, and that is why we have made these changes. We have listened to everyday Canadians, we have acted responsibly, and these new rules will protect communities.

Fisheries and Oceans Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the government is closing seven of nine fisheries libraries and, in its own words, “culling” material at the other two. In response to my recent order paper question, the minister indicated that her department does not have the ability to determine the number of items that have been digitized, and she has no idea what has happened to most of the library materials. Can the minister explain this mess? What information does the government want to destroy, and why? Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, Fisheries and Oceans Canada has respected the Library and Archives of Canada Act as well as the Surplus Crown Assets Act. The written consent of the librarian and archivist was granted to Fisheries and Oceans in 2011 to dispose of publications that are surplus to the department's requirements. Library and Archives Canada was offered a number of publications and selected 79 titles, which were shipped to it back in November 2013. Library users are asking for digital information, which is clear when our libraries average between 5 and 12 in-person visits per year.

Foreign Affairs Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the EU and U.S. are pulling together a plan for short-term financial aid for Ukraine, contingent on reform and democratic transition. Canada should be working closely with our international partners and the people of Ukraine in resolving the unrest. Time is running out and Ukraine is sliding further and further into crisis. Has the minister offered Canada's support for this package and if not, why not? Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, there is no package, but we have had discussions with our American colleagues and the European Union on what we can do working together to try to change the course of the trend going on in Ukraine. This government, this Prime Minister , and Canada will continue to play a leadership role to ensuring that Ukraine takes the right steps toward peace, prosperity, and democracy.

Winter Olympic Games Mr. Chris Warkentin (Peace River, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi are just days away and it is a good time for all Canadians to come together to support our athletes as they represent Canada on the world stage and go for gold in Russia. I wonder if the Minister of Canadian Heritage could please tell the House what this government is doing to support Canadian athletes as they go to reach their dreams and make all Canadians proud. Hon. Shelly Glover (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, our Canadian athletes are a great source of national pride. That is why I am proud that our government is the largest single contributor to amateur sport in Canada. In fact, compared to the lead-up to the 2006 games, our funding levels for winter Olympic sports have more than doubled, and direct support for those athletes has increased by over 120% in the last decade. While I am on my feet, no better cheerleader has gone to Sochi than our colleague, the Minister of State for Sport . I wish him the best of luck. Go Canada go!

(1505) [ Translation ] Aboriginal Affairs Ms. Francine Raynault (Joliette, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have asked the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development a number of times about the intolerable situation facing the Attikamek students in Manawan. Now that a serious flood has destroyed 75% of the Masko-Siwin health centre, people have to travel two and a half hours to Joliette to get treatment. Can the minister commit the necessary funds quickly in order to rebuild the crumbling infrastructure in the Manawan community? Hon.

Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is referring to the Simon P. Ottawa school in Manawan. The students have returned to their classes, but some facilities are still off limits as a health and safety precaution. We are certainly still concerned about the health and safety of residents in the communities. We will continue to take measures to keep them safe.

[ English ] Canada-U.S. Relations Mr. Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton—St. Albert, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, we are less than five months away from the implementation of the U.S. Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. This law will compromise Canadian privacy laws and cost all Canadians, as banks will bear significant compliance costs. Meanwhile, dual citizens, even accidental dual citizens, will have their registered disability and registered educational savings plans and their tax-free savings accounts deemed offshore trusts and subject to U.S. capital gains taxes.

What is the government doing to protect Canadians and their assets from the cash-starved Obama administration? Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, after lengthy negotiations we have reached an agreement with the United States related to FATCA. FATCA has raised a number of concerns in Canada, both among dual Canadian citizens and Canadian financial institutions. The agreement addresses those concerns. In our negotiations we obtained a number of concessions, including exempting certain accounts like RRSPs, RDSPs, TFSAs, et cetera, from the FATCA reporting.

To be clear, the agreement will not impose any new or higher taxes and CRA will not assist the IRS in the collection of U.S. tax moneys.

Electoral Return for Selkirk-Interlake The Speaker : I wish to advise the House that I have today received a letter from the Chief Electoral Officer informing me that the member for Selkirk—Interlake has provided a corrected return as required by the Canada Elections Act. I am making copies of the letter available to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which is currently studying a question of privilege related to this matter. The hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt is rising on a point of order. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.

After conferring with the Clerk, I was told that a question and an answer should be 35 seconds. I would ask of you, sir, if you could please time the answers that we received today from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans , the Minister of Canadian Heritage , and the Minister of State for Finance and get back to us on the time. The Speaker : It does not sound like a point of order. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Mr. Speaker, would you undertake to get back to this House as to the times that ministers took in order to answer? The Speaker : I will not.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings [ English ] Interparliamentary Delegations Hon. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation in the fourth part of the 2013 Ordinary Session of the Parliamentary Assembly at the Council of Europe held in Strasbourg, France, from September 30 to October 4, 2013.

(1510) Committees of the House Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is with some reluctance that I have the obligation to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. It is entitled “Statutory Review of the Conflict of Interest Act”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

Canadian Heritage Mr. Gordon Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. It is entitled “Keep the Momentum Going: Canada's Preparations for the 2014 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games in Sochi”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report. This gives me an opportunity to wish all of our athletes in Sochi the best of luck in bringing home lots of medals.

Environment and Sustainable Development Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, entitled “Terrestrial Habitat Conservation in Canada”. The committee requests that the government table a comprehensive report to this report. [ Translation ] Mr. François Choquette (Drummond, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the NDP's supplementary opinion on habitat conservation.

First of all, I would like to thank all the witnesses who appeared before the committee for this study. According to these witnesses, climate change is the greatest threat to our ecosystems and habitat conservation. However, surprise, surprise, that is not even in the official report. A truly national conservation report would recognize the interdependence of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, not just terrestrial ecosystems, and would set out stronger legislative measures.

The recent amendments to the Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the Species at Risk Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act have left gaping holes in Canada's protections for its ecosystems and habitats. We must remedy this situation immediately and strengthen these laws as quickly as possible.

[ English ] International Mother Language Day Act Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) Bill C-573. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-573,

an act to establish International Mother Language Day . He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be tabling a bill today calling upon the federal government to recognize February 21 of every year as International Mother Language Day. On that day in 1952, five students of the University of Dhaka who were protesting the imposition of Urdu on the Bengali population were killed by police. They became the martyrs of the Bengali language movement. In 1999, UNESCO recognized February 21 as International Mother Language Day. Every year, I host an International Mother Language Day event in my riding.

I do so in part because I see in it something fundamentally Canadian, because what allowed us to be and what keeps us as one is a respect for the importance of our mother languages, because the culture of our first nations is carried forward on this land in the form of over 60 distinct languages, and because we are home to languages spoken all over this world, including Bengali, the preservation of which inspired a day that, through this bill, we can make Canadian. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) (1515) [ Translation ] The Speaker : The hon. member for Pontiac on a point of order.

Mr. Mathieu Ravignat : Mr. Speaker, a report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics on the Conflict of Interest Act was presented. I rose to ask to present the official opposition's dissenting report and I was not recognized. Therefore, I am asking for your consent to do so right now. [ English ] The Speaker : I will allow the hon. member to present the dissenting report.

[ Translation ] Committees of the House Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as the official opposition, the New Democratic Party is disappointed that the committee missed an important opportunity to make recommendations that would strengthen the Conflict of Interest Act. Canadians are frustrated to see more and more rules being bent, broken and ignored in Ottawa. The Conservative Party was supposed to make changes in response to the Liberals' corruption and it passed the Federal Accountability Act.

However, in the seven years that the Conservative government has been in power, we are seeing more and more corruption and evidence of a culture of entitlement, as a result of legal exemptions and loopholes. However, the committee received a number of important recommendations that were not recognized. The NDP would like to strengthen the Conflict of Interest Act. We see this as an opportunity to renew our commitment to create an open, transparent and accountable government. [ English ] Mr. Craig Scott : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to request the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion: that, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, immediately after the reading of the order of the day for second reading of Bill C-23,

An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts , a motion that the said bill be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be deemed moved and be subject to provisions of Standing Order 73(1). The Speaker : Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No. The Speaker: There is no consent.

Petitions Sex Selection Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two separate petitions, both from the area of my riding, Kitchener—Conestoga, as well as from the surrounding area. The petitioners are calling on Parliament to condemn the discrimination against females that is occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination.

Health Insurance for Retirees Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Outremont, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to submit this petition today. It signed by several thousand Canadians who are asking the federal government to keep its promise to retired public servants, military, and RCMP members, and to immediately stop any plans that could double the cost of federal retirees' health insurance plans. [ Translation ] Retired public servants worked hard their entire careers to serve Canadians.

The Government of Canada should fulfill its promise and abandon the changes that could jeopardize the retirement income security and health care benefits of federal retirees. [ English ] The NDP is proud to stand with our federal retirees.

Rouge National Park Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition on behalf of hundreds of Canadians who are vitally concerned about Rouge national park. They want this irreplaceable 100-square-kilometre land assembly with a healthy and sustainable Rouge park. They want the park to implement the plans and the ecological vision of various plans from 1994 through to 2001, 2005, and 2008. They also want a 600-metre-wide protected woodland as an ecological corridor. This is an area of vital interest to many constituents in my riding and the surrounding GTA.

(1520) Sex Selection Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by hundreds of people from my riding in communities like Parksville, Qualicum Beach, Coombs, Errington, and Nanaimo. They are drawing the attention of the House to what was exposed by a CBC documentary, that being that in Canada ultrasounds are being used to tell the sex of an unborn child and then expecting parents may choose to terminate the pregnancy if the unborn child is a girl. The petitioners call upon Parliament to condemn the discrimination against females that is occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination.

[ Translation ] The Environment Ms. Manon Perreault (Montcalm, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the people of Montcalm and Mascouche would like to draw to the attention of the House the fact that the current government spends over $1.3 billion a year on subsidies to the oil and gas industry. They feel that those subsidies are incentives for energy sources that produce high levels of greenhouse gas emissions and discourage investments in green and renewable solutions.

Accordingly, they think this money would be better spent on renewable energy, clean technologies and improvements to energy efficiency to address climate change. [ English ] The Speaker : Order, please. I see several members rising. I will just remind members that under the practice of the House we normally provide just a brief and succinct explanation of the petition. The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

Canada Post Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I will definitely try to be succinct. I have two petitions. The first petition is from residents of Alberta in Spruce Grove, Edmonton, and Fort McMurray. It is calling upon the Government of Canada to reverse the cuts to Canada Post and to not cut door-to-door delivery and close post offices.

Experimental Lakes Area Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from citizens of Alberta who are asking the government to return the previous funding to operate the Experimental Lakes.

International Mother Language Day Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in support of the bill I just tabled calling upon the federal government to recognize February 21 as international mother language day, I also have the privilege of tabling a petition signed by hundreds of citizens in and around my riding calling upon the Government of Canada to designate February 21 as international mother language day in recognition of the value of linguistic and cultural diversity and multilingualism.

Veterans Affairs Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting petitions from over 500 constituents opposing the closure of the Windsor and Essex County veterans office. They are signed by Afghanistan, World War II, and Korean War veterans and peacekeepers. They are calling upon the government to reverse this decision.

Rouge National Park Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of a good number of constituents in support of Rouge national park, and in particular the proposition that the park be substantially larger than the plan that the government has put forward.

[ Translation ] VIA Rail Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the people in my region, from Bathurst all the way to Campbellton, have signed a petition entitled “Save our Trains!”. Rail service is one of the most affordable and environmentally friendly modes of transportation. These people are urging the Government of Canada to take all the necessary steps to set up a daily VIA Rail return service between Montreal-Quebec City and Halifax, Nova Scotia, with stops in Campbellton, Bathurst and Miramichi, New Brunswick.

Canada Post Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present. They come from my riding and the neighbouring riding of Sherbrooke and have to do with the services being eliminated by Canada Post. The petitioners are urging Canada Post to reverse its decision, which is a direct attack on the safety of seniors and people with disabilities and will also eliminate jobs for letter carriers, who provide an invaluable service to the community. They are also calling on Canada Post to come up with new ways of generating revenue, such as offering financial services.

VIA Rail Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition that deals with safeguarding VIA Rail service in eastern Canada. It has been signed by over 24,000 people, and I represent only a small portion of those people. We could lose all VIA Rail service in eastern Canada. This is only the beginning. There will be other kinds of pressure. The government should pay attention.

(1525) [ English ] Canada Post Mr. Ryan Cleary (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I stand today to present a petition on behalf of constituents in my riding of St. John's South—Mount Pearl. The petition contains 1,551 signatures of people calling on the Conservative government to reverse recent cuts to Canada Post services, including home delivery, and to look instead for ways to modernize operations. The signatures were gathered in a two-and-a-half hour blitz on January 25 and reflect my riding's overwhelming support of a treasured public service.

[ Translation ] Marc Ménard Mr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be in the House today to present a petition with nearly 7,000 signatures gathered in just a few days. The petitioners are calling on the Canadian government to turn to Interpol in the case of the disappearance of one of my constituents. Marc Ménard went missing in Mexico in March 2013, and the Ménard family has had no news from the Mexican police authorities since May 2013. I want to thank all the petitioners and assure them and their families of my full support.

[ English ] Public Transit Ms. Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to submit petitions from thousands and thousands of Canadians from coast to coast. Petitioners want the government to provide long-term, predictable, and non-partisan funding for public transit. They note that Canadians deserve fast, reliable, and affordable public transit, that road congestion is costing the GTA economy $6 billion a year in lost productivity, and that the average daily commute time is over 80 minutes. Investing in public transit is good for the Canadian economy, good for families, and good for the environment.

Income Tax Act Mr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition in support of a bill introduced by the member for Hamilton Mountain . Bill C-201 would allow tradespeople and apprentices to deduct travel and accommodation expenses from their taxable incomes when they secure and maintain employment at a construction site more than 80 kilometres from their homes.

Veterans Affairs Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions. The first one is from hundreds of Canadians from Windsor Essex County who urge the government to cancel its planned closure of the Windsor District Veterans Affairs office.

Shark Finning Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from thousands of Canadians who are urging the government to take measures to stop the global practice of shark finning and to ensure the responsible conservation management of sharks. They call on the Government of Canada to immediately legislate a ban on the importation of shark fins to Canada.

Ukraine Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I present a petition signed by Canadians who are very much concerned about what is happening in Ukraine. They believe a truly democratic society should promote freedom and responsible speech and expression and that people should never have to fear violence and imprisonment simply because they feel passionate enough to peacefully rally their opposition. The people of Ukraine have become outraged with the ongoing protests that have proven to be violent and deadly.

Petitioners are calling on the House to be supportive of the general feeling of the people of Ukrainian heritage and others here in Canada about what is happening in Ukraine today.

[ Translation ] Navigation Restrictions Mr. Marc-André Morin (Laurentides—Labelle, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from constituents in my riding, Laurentides—Labelle, and several other regions in Quebec. The petitioners are calling on the House to support my motion, Motion No. 441, which we will vote on this evening. They feel that it is important to simplify the regulations and that bureaucracy and red tape prevents their municipalities from taking action. The champions on the other side should wake up and realize that this motion would be a good thing for Canadians.

[ English ] Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Motions for Papers Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Request for Emergency Debate Grain Transport S. O. 52 The Speaker : I am in receipt of a notice for a request for an emergency debate from the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria and I will hear him now. Hon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you, as an MP from the Prairies, are well aware of the grain bottleneck out west. We have heard from many Prairie farmers who are frustrated about the delay in shipping. I visited Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta in November, and I witnessed first-hand the mountains of wheat and other crops that are building up outside jammed grain elevators.

Much of that crop is stored out in sheds or under tarps, and it is deteriorating. As a result, grain prices have dropped 40%. The problem we are hearing about from farmers is that no cost-benefit analysis and no business plan has been done to manage transportation. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food even defended the railroad last fall, stating that the performance was adequate, which it is clearly not.

Promises were also made by the minister to bring forward new legislation to rectify the imbalance in the market power between farmers and railroads to enable shippers to get a decent level of transportation service. Federal legislation introduced last June did not deal with the situation and does not help farmers. Many Prairie farmers agree that the legislation needs to be amended to make it easier to hit railroad companies with fines for the transportation bottleneck. Over 95% of Canada's export grain is shipped by rail. Canada is the world's top producer of canola and the second largest exporter of wheat.

Almost 100 million tonnes of grain have been produced this year. The nation's two major carriers, CN and CP, each provide 5,500 cars a week, but that is not enough for even half. Twenty vessels in Vancouver and five ships in Prince Rupert were waiting for grain on October 31. Today between 30 and 40 vessels are waiting to be loaded in Vancouver. Ships have been idling for as long as six weeks in Vancouver waiting for grain, at a cost of $12,000 to $20,000 per day in demurrage and penalties, and farmers are going to be paying for that. Canadian-based grain companies have been charged more than $20 million in fees.

I could go on about the many issues facing grain farmers. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, for the sake of all grain farmers out west who are facing the loss of their valuable crop, to let the House have an emergency debate tonight to talk about this transportation crisis.

(1530) Speaker's Ruling Speaker's Ruling The Speaker : I thank the hon. member for raising the issue. I am inclined to grant this request, so I will order it to be held at the normal hour of adjournment today.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders [ English ] Fair Elections Act Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) Motion moved that Bill C-23,

An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-23. Second reading He said: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I introduced the fair elections act. It keeps everyday citizens in charge of democracy by pushing special interests out of the game and fraudsters out of business. The bill would make it harder to break the law and easier to vote. It would close loopholes to big money and would impose new penalties on political impostors who make rogue calls.

It would empower law enforcement with sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand. The fair elections act would make our laws tough, predictable, and easy to follow. Life would be harder for election lawbreakers and easier for honest citizens taking

part in democracy. Law enforcement begins with the Commissioner of Canada Elections. The fair elections act would give him sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand. Sharper teeth means allowing the commissioner to seek tougher penalties for existing offences. Longer reach means empowering him with more than a dozen new offences to combat big money, rogue calls, and fraudulent voting. It would let him get to the truth by making it an offence for anyone to deceive or disrupt his investigation.

Finally, a freer hand means the commissioner would have full independence, with control of his own staff and his own investigations, and a fixed term of seven years, which means he could not be fired without cause. Consistent with separating the administration from enforcement, the fair elections act would house the commissioner with the Director of Public Prosecutions. He would maintain his powers and functions but gain status as a deputy head, allowing him to make his own staffing decisions and to direct his own investigations.

Although the two would be housed in the same office, the director would have no role in the commissioner's investigations. To ensure impartiality of the position, those individuals who have previously been a candidate or an employee of a political party, a minister, Elections Canada, or an MP's office would not be eligible to serve as commissioner. The referee should not be wearing a team jersey. The fair elections act proposes that the current commissioner, Yves Côté, and his staff would remain in their roles, and all existing investigations would continue uninterrupted.

One of the responsibilities of the newly empowered watchdog would be to prevent impostors from making rogue calls. The fair elections act would do this by providing a mandatory public registry for mass calling. It would impose prison time for impersonating elections officials, and it would increase penalties for deceiving people out of their votes. However, it is just as bad to vote illegally as it is to deny someone else's vote. Each fraudulent vote cancels out an honest one. To avoid this, we currently have identification requirements under the Canada Elections Act.

Voters can choose from one of 39 acceptable forms of ID. When they fail to bring any of those, someone can vouch for their identity. Elections Canada commissioned a study last year that found irregularities in one in four cases where vouching was used. Having irregularities 25% of the time constitutes an unacceptable risk. I want to spend some special time on this particular issue, because these are the findings of the Neufeld report, which was commissioned by Elections Canada. According to that report, as I said earlier, there was a 25% error rate in the use of vouching.

That means that every four times Elections Canada used vouching, there was an irregularity once. I will quote directly from the report: ...the audit showed that errors are made in the majority of cases that require the use of non-regular processes. Vouching is a non-regular practice. It went on to say: ...inadequate or ineffective training carries significant negative implications for procedural compliance. That is on page 21. Furthermore, and I quote directly from the report at page 26: Public trust is at risk if the rate of error is not significantly reduced by the next...election.

Finally: Without amendments to the Canada Elections Act, procedural compliance cannot be significantly improved in the 42nd general election. If I can quote one more time: Identity vouching procedures are unquestionably the most complex “exception” process administered at polling stations. The level of irregularities for vouching averaged 25 per cent.

(1535) It goes on. In a review entitled “A Review of Compliance with Election Day Registration and Voting Process Rules”, this audit showed that errors are made in the majority of cases that require non-regular processes. Then it takes a global view of Canada and the practices that happen in the 308 ridings. It says the following, “Averaged across 308 ridings, election officers made over 500 serious administrative errors per electoral district on Election Day”. That is 500 serious administrative errors per riding, and multiply that by the 308 ridings across the country.

To quote from the report again, “Obviously, this is unacceptable. Aside from legal concerns, public trust in proper administration of the electoral process is at serious risk if these error rates are not addressed”. And address them, we will. The fair elections act would put an end to the use of vouching on election day. Similarly, Elections Canada recently experimented with the use of the voter identification cards as a form of ID. Before these pilot projects, Canadians voted for years without using cards to identify themselves, and for good reason.

A report by Elections Canada recently showed that roughly one in six eligible voters does not have a correct address on the national registrar of electors, which is used to produce the voter information card. In other words, one out of six electors may get a card with the wrong address. That allows some to vote in a different riding than they live in, or to potentially vote more than once. In fact, the Quebec comedy show Infoman did an interesting exposé on this. Two Montrealers received two voter information cards each, so they both went and voted twice each.

They called it the “two-for-one special by Elections Canada”. This level of error, one in six, is also too high. As a result, the fair elections act would end the use of the voter information card as an acceptable form of identification. To protect against fraud and to uphold the integrity of our electoral system, the fair elections act would not only instill these new rules, but it would also require in law that Elections Canada inform Canadians, through the advertising function, of the required forms of identification.

In other words, embedded in the law would be a provision by which Elections Canada would be obliged to inform electors of the following: (

b) how an elector may have their name added to a list of electors and may have corrections made to information respecting the elector on the list; (

c) how an elector may vote under

section 127 and the times, dates and locations for voting; (

d) how an elector may establish their identity and residence in order to vote, including the pieces of identification that they may use to that end; That is the basic information that Elections Canada should advertise, so that when people get to the voting booth they already know what identification they will be required to present. The good news is that there would continue to be roughly 39 different pieces of identification that would be acceptable. That number presents Canadians with plenty of options, as long as Elections Canada educates them of those options.

It is just as important, though, for political parties to follow the rules, as it is for voters. With a 370-page Canada Elections Act, much of the challenge is determining what those rules are. All parties fail at that from time to time, often while trying their best to comply. Since the last election, the commissioner has had to sign 15 different compliance agreements with those who have breached elections law. Some are due to honest mistakes. Members of all parties have complained that the rules are unclear and complicated.

Complicated rules bring unintentional breaches and intimidate honest, law-abiding people from participating in democracy. The fair elections act would make the rules clear, predictable, and easy to follow. Parties would have the right to an advance ruling and

interpretations from Elections Canada within 45 days of a request, a service that the Canada Revenue Agency already provides. Elections Canada will also keep a registry of

interpretations, and consult and notify parties before changing them.

(1540) However, even with clearer rules, members of Parliament and the Chief Electoral Officer will sometimes disagree on an MP's election expense return. When that happens, the Canada Elections Act provides that an MP can no longer sit in the House of Commons until the expense return has been changed to the CEO's satisfaction. Now, remember, the removal of a member of Parliament from the House of Commons overturns the democratic decision of tens of thousands of electors: Canadian citizens. No one person should have the power to do that without providing due process.

To that end, the fair elections bill will allow an MP to present the disputed case in the courts and to have judges rule on it quickly, before the CEO seeks the MP's suspension. Expedited hearings and strict timelines will ensure that these cases do not drag on. Free speech is the lifeblood of democracy. The government is therefore following through on its commitment to repeal the ban on the premature transmission of election results. According to the Supreme Court, this ban is an infringement on freedom of expression.

It is also completely impractical to suggest that merely banning broadcasting of results from eastern Canadian constituencies to the west will prevent that information from travelling westward. We live in a modern era where everyday Canadians have the ability to transmit information via social media and other means, so this provision is unenforceable, even if it were not a violation of our basic principle of free speech. Voting is to democracy what free speech is to liberty. Unfortunately, Canadians are doing less voting these days.

Since Elections Canada began promotional voter participation campaigns, turnout has plummeted, from 75% in 1988, to 61% in 2001. A Library of Parliament analysis shows that between 1984 and 2000, right in the middle of which Elections Canada began mounting its promotional campaigns, voter turnout among youth plummeted by 20 percentage points. Somehow this is not working. Why is it happening? The truth is that there are many reasons, but some of them are actually very practical.

Elections Canada's own report on the last election said that in 2011, 60% of non-voters cited everyday issues as the reason for not voting. These included being too busy and lacking basic information. The same report showed, “The most important access barrier [to youth voting] was lack of knowledge about the electoral process, including not knowing about different ways to vote..”. The national youth survey revealed that nearly half of all Canadians aged 18 to 34 were unaware of the three options for voting other than on election day.

That means that roughly half of our youth in this country do not know that they can vote at advance polls, by mail, or through special ballot. Students who happen to be busy on election day, studying or working, do not have the knowledge right now that they can vote in other ways. That level of awareness is incredibly low, and it is much lower amongst aboriginal youth, whose turnout we need to see increased. Therefore, we are proposing an increase in the information that voters receive about the options available for them to cast their ballot.

There is more evidence, though, to support the view that that is the kind of information they need. The survey that I just cited indicated that roughly a quarter of young non-voters expressed that not knowing where, when, or how to vote played a role in their decision not to cast the ballot. That is why Elections Canada correctly listed its top priority on youth turnout to be, “increasing awareness about when, where and how to vote, by providing information in formats suitable for youth”. The job of informing voters is even more important for the disabled.

Consultation and data show that Elections Canada does a good job of providing the tools that special needs voters require, such as wheelchair ramps, sign language, and braille services. Where the agency falls short is in making these tools known to those who need them. To address all of these problems, the fair elections bill will bring better customer service to voters, with an extra advance voting day and more elections officials to relieve congestion at voting stations.

(1545) The bill goes further than that. The bill would amend

section 18 of the Canada Elections Act to focus all of Elections Canada's promotional campaigns on two purposes: informing people of the basics of voting, where, when, and what ID to bring; and informing disabled people of the extra tools available to help them vote. It would be left to aspiring candidates and parties to give people something for which to vote and to reach Canadians where they are in their communities.

I look to the example set by our former immigration minister, now Minister of Employment and Social Development , who went out to new Canadians who perhaps were not entirely familiar with our democratic process because they came from countries that did not share those processes. He exposed them to democracy, and interested and inspired them in the process. We have seen similar activities that have been done by President Obama, who inspired a whole generation who did not traditionally vote to come out and cast a ballot.

All of this shows that political candidates who are aspiring for office are far better at inspiring voters to get out and cast their ballot than our government bureaucracies, which is exactly how we will change the law. However, that costs money. We live in the second biggest country in the world, with 10 million square kilometres. We are a nation that is twice the size of the entire European Union, and 95% of the countries in the world have a greater population density than we do. That means we have to travel long distances to reach our fellow Canadians.

To do that, Canadian political parties and candidates spent $120 million in the last election in total. It sounds like a lot, until one considers that we spend $2.5 billion on cosmetics and fragrances in one year. Our nation spends 20 times more on products like cologne and makeup every year than we spend contesting democratic elections once every four years. It is fair to say that special interest groups can use big money to drown out the voices of everyday Canadians, but that is why our nation's laws try to block that money.

During campaigns, parties should rely on the money of small donors, not powerful special interest groups. Donations, like power, should be dispersed among the many rather than concentrated with the few. As a result, the fair elections act would ban politicians from using unpaid loans to evade donation limits and maintain the absolute interdiction on corporate and union money. It would also allow a modest increase in the spending and donation limits while imposing tougher audits and penalties for those who exceed those limits.

At the same time, the goal of the elections act is to allow small donors to contribute more to democracy through the front door and to block illegal big money from sneaking in the back door. I would like to take this moment to thank the now Minister for Multiculturalism , who played a seminal role in crafting the proposals that I have brought before this House today. He and his staff have done tremendous work and have served their country well. I am very proud; in fact, I am very privileged, to have inherited that work.

We have before us a fair elections act that would further protect the basic principles that guide our democracy: that power should be dispersed in the hands of the many rather than concentrated in the hands of the few; that Canadians should be in charge of their democracy; that special interest groups should be on the sidelines; and rule-breakers should be out of the game altogether.

This is yet another occasion for us to celebrate the democracy that has brought us to where we are as a country today, to make it better, to further instill it in the foundation of our country, and to move forward into the future of Canadian democracy.

(1550) Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for an extremely well-prepared speech. It is obvious that in recent days he has also taken this file to heart and that he understands the bill inside and out. However, I would like to challenge him on the question of invoking Mr. Neufeld's report as a reason for getting rid of vouching and also voter IDs.

That report said the following: It should be noted that this decision [the first decision in the Etobicoke Centre case] was made on the basis that important procedural requirements had not been met, and not due to evidence indicating that ineligible voters had been permitted to vote. This was also emphasized by the Supreme Court when it talked about the problems of disenfranchisement by using irregularities as a reason to annul the election of our colleague from that area.

I want to then ask, why has the minister gone that route rather than taking the Chief Electoral Officer up on his request that the Chief Electoral Officer could now recruit election workers on his own, well in advance of the dropping of the writ, and thereby be able to train workers better, so that what happens on election day does not have irregularities to the same extent that the studies have shown? Hon. Pierre Poilievre : Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and for the very good meeting we had well before the introduction of this legislation.

He is very passionate about these subjects, and I am sure Canadians will benefit from his input at committee when the bill arrives there. The Neufeld report not only specified that there are immense rates of irregularities in the use of vouching, but it also said that even when there was increased supervision over the practice of vouching, those irregularities were not prevented. In fact, they only dropped by four percentage points. Normally, vouching has a rate of irregularity of 25%, extraordinarily high. When extra supervision is provided, the rate of irregularities is 21%. That is still one in five instances.

It is far too high; it is an extremely complicated way to validate someone's identity; and because of that complication, it leads to incredible levels of inaccuracy that risk the integrity of our system.

(1555) Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on that for just a moment. I want to echo the comments that were made by my colleague, by the way, and congratulate the minister on his hard work on this, as he has met with me in the past as well. I appreciate that very much. I was going to ask about something else, but I want to stick with the issue of vouching for just a moment because this is very important.

In my riding and in many rural ridings across this country, disenfranchisement is actually happening and has happened in the past little while, and the reason for that is that a lot of seniors in rural areas do not have the identification that is being asked for. For example, there are anomalies in certain provinces. In Newfoundland and Labrador, the health card does not have a photo attached to it. I understand there are 39 ways this could be done, but without that basic registration, a lot of this would not count. I ask this in all sincerity.

Would the minister be willing to look at an option provided through Elections Canada to make sure people who are vulnerable, ideally seniors, a lot of them rural, would be able to take advantage of a vouching system that would be acceptable to Elections Canada and cut down on the number of cases of fraud? Hon. Pierre Poilievre : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question and for the valuable input he provided when we met earlier. He is a worthy critic and will also serve Canadians well in the committee that reviews this bill. Right now, photo identification is actually not required under the act.

It is a possibility. One can use photo ID, but one does not have to. I have here the list of 39 different forms of ID that are available for people to cast a ballot. I want to raise that point, though, because the leader of the Green Party posted a public letter in which she said that photo ID was required. She is an extremely well-informed parliamentarian and she was under the incorrect impression that photo ID was required. That suggests to me that we need to do a better job of informing Canadians which ID is actually required and which is not. That is why we want to amend

section 18 of the Canada Elections Act to require the agency to advertise aggressively about the real photo identification requirements, because clearly there is a knowledge gap, even among our most informed citizens. If Canadians are aware of what ID is required and all the 39 options that are available to them, they will be more likely to show up with that ID, so we do not have this problem at the polling stations. Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the minister might touch on some of the provisions in the bill that would help avoid the unfortunate circumstances where political parties and candidates in the past have suggested that the rules of the game have changed during an election or after an election, which has brought into question some of the issues surrounding Elections Canada and some of the disputes that all political parties and candidates have had over the last number of years. I wonder if the minister would touch on that a bit. Hon. Pierre Poilievre : Mr.

Speaker, all parties have had compliance problems with Elections Canada, and many of them have said that is the result of unclear rules. Some of these rules do change, and they change suddenly without notice. Sometimes they are just not written down at all. The fair elections act would create an easy-to-follow system. It would allow parties to ask Elections Canada for either an advance ruling on a hypothetical fact situation or an

interpretation of the law. Elections Canada would then provide that within 45 days, it would be in a public registry, and it would apply equally to absolutely everyone. It would also be binding on both Elections Canada and the commissioner, so that if the parties carried out the practice that Elections Canada authorized, the agency and law enforcement could not then prosecute them for following the rules they were told to follow.

As well, when Elections Canada wanted to change the rules, we would create a mandatory consultation and notice period that would allow the advisory committee of political parties to put their input to the agency so that the rules are practical, are fair, and come with reasonable lead time. Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the hon. member about the decision to move the investigative enforcement wing of Elections Canada under the public prosecutor's office.

It seems very strange, given that in a common law system, generally speaking, the mandate of the prosecution office is simply to hear the evidence presented by the investigators and then make the decision whether or not to proceed with the prosecution. That is normal for judges and prosecutors in a civil law jurisdiction. Why is the government making an exception for Elections Canada that does not apply to any other agency at the federal level?

(1600) Hon. Pierre Poilievre : Mr. Speaker, we carefully considered whether it was appropriate to house investigations and prosecutions in the same office, and we concluded that it was, firstly because it has already been done. Not only were those two functions housed in the same office before 2006, but they were housed in the hands of the same person. The Commissioner of Canada Elections used to be responsible for both investigations and prosecutions under the Canada Elections Act.

The Federal Accountability Act moved the prosecutorial function to the director of public prosecutions, who is an independent prosecutor who can only be removed by Parliament. Now, with the fair elections act, we would make the commissioner independent of Elections Canada as well. The reason we believe that the commissioner must be independent is that any watchdog who enforces law must be independent. That independence means the ability to choose one's own staff, direct one's own investigations, and serve a fixed term without the possibility of being fired without cause.

Right now, the Commissioner of Canada Elections has none of that independence. None of those attributes of independent governance exist within the office of today's commissioner. [ Translation ] Ms. Lise St-Denis (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I imagine that electoral reform legislation takes years to develop. Why is there nothing about electronic voting? The parties already use electronic voting for their leadership races. Did the government look at that possibility? Even if it does not happen this year, it will probably be very important at some point and would fix a number of problems. Hon.

Pierre Poilievre : Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. The fair elections act will ensure that Canadians are always in charge of our democracy. It includes several elements. First, we are making the commissioner responsible for investigating allegations under the Canada Elections Act more independent. The commissioner will be able to investigate without being influenced by other authorities. Second, we are addressing the issue of fraudulent voting. Lastly, we are addressing the issue of fraudulent calls.

These three steps will help strengthen the integrity of our democracy and ensure that Canadians remain in charge of our system. [ English ] Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to follow the minister with a reply. I would note that, in some serious respect, the odyssey of the bill began in March 2012 with a motion in this House that was unanimously adopted by all the parties. It was sponsored by the former critic for democratic reform, the member from Hamilton.

It was supposed to have produced a bill on the subject matter of the motion, which was heavily focused on better enforcement measures for Elections Canada and measures to combat the kinds of fraud that had become known, through the media, as having occurred in 2011. That bill was supposed to have been tabled in September 2012. We are now about 16 or 17 months from there.

There have been serious delays, and in the course of that time I will acknowledge there have been expansions in the scope of the bill, which unfortunately have let the bill stray well away from what needed to be its core focus and, I also fear, have allowed the injection of an agenda that is very problematic, which I will address. The minister does like to say that he has talked to this person and that person, but I am not sure how any of the conversations he has had amount to the kind of consultation that is needed on such a fundamental change to such a fundamental law in our country.

The tradition used to be that all parties would be heavily involved at the drafting stage, so that when it hit the House, there would not be any kind of serious problem on key provisions, and at the very least, the Chief Electoral Officer would be intimately involved. We all know that has not been the approach.

That is one reason why I moved and asked for unanimous consent to take this bill, after first reading, to committee, which in our system, would allow a bit more freedom—a lot more freedom, in fact—for Parliament to look at all the elements and not be stuck with the principle of the bill as it has come forward, without consultation. However, as we all know, the vote went against the motion.

Unfortunately, the way the bill has been rolled out, and I say this with some regret because I do respect the acumen of the minister and the time he has put in since he became minister, it smacks of a “my way or the highway” approach to what is in the bill. There are good things in it, but I will not be spending my time on the good things. We will hear more about them from different members.

There is absolutely no doubt that there are things in here that nobody is going to have any problem with, that would tighten systems, and that would respond to some of what I call basic reform requests that have come since 2010 from the Chief Electoral Officer around the functioning of the system. However, “some good points” pale in comparison to what I would actually call “some very awful points”.

For that reason, after spending a good part of the last 24 hours reviewing and consulting on the bill, as it was only tabled yesterday, I have come to the conclusion that it is so flawed on these key half dozen points that I will be voting against the bill at second reading, now that the opportunity for an earlier committee process has been rejected. Allow me to, first, state generally why the bill is, in my view, so deeply problematic before then elaborating a bit further on four or five of the problems. I would emphasize that if those problems disappeared at third reading, the vote would look different.

The problem is that they are there and they are so serious that I cannot recommend to my colleagues that we vote for it. Mr. Erin O'Toole: It got an A minus. Mr. Craig Scott: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good point. I think the former chief electoral officer is, unfortunately, an extraordinarily easy grader.

(1605) All of Canada knows that the imperative behind this bill eventually appearing and the central challenge was to rein in the kinds of election fraud discovered in 2011. There were the fraudulent election calls and other kinds of fraud that we know occurred in 2006 with what we called the in-and-out affair.

Instead, the Conservatives, through the minister, launched a kind of Alice-in-Wonderland detour by turning this exercise into some kind of indirect and sometimes rather pointed flogging of the institution that has been trying to rein in electoral fraud, against considerable Conservative Party resistance and manipulation. That includes Elections Canada and the Chief Electoral Officer, with his associate, the Commissioner for Elections Canada.

This whole exercise started with the unanimous vote in March 2012, and now that trajectory has either been submerged, or to some extent hijacked, in order for the Conservative Party, through the government, to start to portray itself as a victim of a non-partisan agency. The metaphor of “not wearing a team jersey” was carefully chosen and has been repeated by the minister. We all know what is intended by that. We all know the tarnishing of the institution that was intended by that, for Elections Canada and in particular the Chief Electoral Officer.

Marc Mayrand and Elections Canada are being portrayed as non-neutral players on some team versus being the neutral referees that we all know they are. This inversion then drives the so-called logic behind so much of what is in Bill C-23 . On top of that, there is a second, rather topsy-turvy move in Bill C-23 .

After years of examples of fraud and constant brushes between the law and the Conservative Party—-when I say the law, I mean Elections Canada as the embodiment of seeking to enforce the law—what we get from the minister and the government in the bill is a focus on ordinary Canadians as somehow the main concern when it comes to fraud. The government has removed two means of voter identification. The first is the voter's ID card, which can be presented along with another piece of identity, which has been developed on a kind of rolling pilot project basis by Elections Canada to enfranchise more Canadian voters.

The second one is the practice of vouching, for which there were 100,000 Canadians in the last election. Effectively, the government wants to lure, or to some extent sucker, the press and Canadians into thinking this is somehow about fairness and preventing fraud. This has to be called what it is: voter suppression. These tactics have been building over the past decade, since around 2006, when changes to the law made it harder and harder to prove one has the right to vote in our country.

Colleagues of mine will provide overviews of this trajectory and also examples of real-world impacts and who would be disproportionately excluded by these changes. Voter suppression is the result, but I personally will need to be assured that this is not also, frankly, the intention, an intention informed by the deliberate strategies patented south of the border by the Republican Party.

A third feature of this upside-down world is how the government engages in the kind of night equals day, war equals peace, doublespeak by claiming that it gets big money out of elections with Bill C-23 , when there are cumulatively a number of measures that keep big money in play in ways that are likely to benefit one party most. I will leave it to everyone's imagination to know which party I am referring to.

Fourth, Orwell would be smiling now—maybe smiling with a grimace, but smiling—if he were listening to the minister talking about adding “enforcement teeth” to the Canada Elections Act, when the single most important measure requested by both the commissioner and the Chief Electoral Officer, the power to compel testimony in the face of delay and recalcitrant witnesses, was omitted.

(1610) Mr. Speaker, let me now turn to more detail on these very general points, all the while noting, and this is important, that my colleagues, in the days and weeks to come, will deeply elaborate on every one of these points. The caucus is extraordinarily engaged with the problems relating to this bill, and a lot of expertise will be brought to bear that I hope the minister will listen to and that will inform the committee stage. I will first comment on my concern and claim that the result is voter suppression.

We have to know of, and put into context, an active effort by Elections Canada, which in the last election used voter identification cards in a number of different contexts to try to increase enfranchisement of people in our society who, as the minister rightly pointed out, tend not to vote in greater numbers than others: aboriginal voters on reserves, youth on campuses, and seniors in residences. The method that is now being abolished, the voter identification cards along with another piece of ID, was used successfully in this experiment with an extraordinary amount of positive feedback.

I will move on to the vouching issue. I think that the minister wants to tap into some intuitive problem Canadians might have with one person vouching for another. However, we live in a society that would not function without certain bonds of trust and a degree of procedural stricture. What happens with vouching is this. There were 100,000 people vouched for in the last election. A person who is already confirmed as a legitimate voter at the poll in question may vouch for one person. If that vouching is believed by the election-day worker, then that person may vote. Here is an example.

Two parents show up with two teenagers, who in a previous election were aged 16 and 17, but when the last election came, they were missed by the enumeration. That is a process that almost does not exist any more. They show up at the poll and do not have the right kind of ID, or may well have it but have not brought it with them. Each parent can vouch for one of the teenagers, who ar