Bill C-60 (Historical)

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures

Part 1 implements certain income tax measures proposed in the March 21, 2013 budget. Most notably, it
(a) allows certain adoption-related expenses incurred before a child’s adoption file is opened to be eligible for the Adoption Expense Tax Credit;
(b) introduces an additional credit for first-time claimants of the Charitable Donations Tax Credit;
(c) makes expenses for the use of safety deposit boxes non-deductible;
(d) adjusts the Dividend Tax Credit and gross-up factor applicable in respect of dividends other than eligible dividends;
(e) allows collection action for 50% of taxes, interest and penalties in dispute in respect of a tax shelter that involves a charitable donation;
(f) extends, for one year, the Mineral Exploration Tax Credit for flow-through share investors;
(g) extends, for two years, the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for eligible manufacturing and processing machinery and equipment;
(h) clarifies that the income tax reserve for future services is not available in respect of reclamation obligations;
(i) phases out the additional deduction available to credit unions over five years;
(j) amends rules regarding the judicial authorization process for imposing a requirement on a third party to provide information or documents related to an unnamed person or persons; and
(k) repeals the rules relating to international banking centres.
Part 1 also implements other income tax measures and tax-related measures. Most notably, it
(a) amends rules relating to caseload management of the Tax Court of Canada;
(b) streamlines the process for approving tax relief for Canadian Forces members and police officers;
(c) addresses a technical issue in relation to the temporary measure that allows certain family members to open a Registered Disability Savings Plan for an adult individual who might not be able to enter into a contract; and
(d) simplifies the determination of the Canadian-source income of non-resident pilots employed by Canadian airlines.
Part 2 implements certain goods and services tax and harmonized sales tax (GST/HST) measures proposed in the March 21, 2013 budget by
(a) reducing the compliance burden for employers under the GST/HST pension plan rules;
(b) providing the Minister of National Revenue the authority to withhold GST/HST refunds claimed by a business where the business has failed to provide certain GST/HST registration information;
(c) expanding the GST/HST exemption for publicly funded homemaker services to include personal care services provided to individuals who require such assistance at home;
(d) clarifying that reports, examinations and other services that are supplied for a non-health-care-related purpose do not qualify for the GST/HST exemption for basic health care services; and
(e) ending the current GST/HST point-of-sale relief for the Governor General.
Part 2 also amends the Excise Tax Act and Excise Act, 2001 to modify the rules regarding the judicial authorization process for imposing a requirement on a third party to provide information or documents related to an unnamed person or persons.
In addition, Part 2 amends the Excise Act, 2001 to ensure that the excise duty rate applicable to manufactured tobacco other than cigarettes and tobacco sticks is consistent with that applicable to other tobacco products.
Part 3 implements various measures, including by enacting and amending several Acts.
Division 1 of Part 3 amends the Customs Tariff to extend for ten years, until December 31, 2024, provisions relating to Canada’s preferential tariff treatments for developing and least-developed countries. Also, Division 1 reduces the rate of duty under tariff treatments in respect of a number of items relating to baby clothing and certain sports and athletic equipment imported into Canada on or after April 1, 2013.
Division 2 of Part 3 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act, the Insurance Companies Act and the Cooperative Credit Associations Act to remove some residency requirements to provide flexibility for financial institutions to efficiently structure the committees of their boards of directors.
Division 3 of Part 3 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to renew the equalization and territorial formula financing programs until March 31, 2019 and to implement total transfer protection for the 2013-2014 fiscal year. That Act is also amended to clarify the time of calculation of the growth rate of the Canada Health Transfer for each fiscal year beginning after March 31, 2017.
Division 4 of Part 3 authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to certain entities or for certain purposes.
Division 5 of Part 3 amends the Canadian Securities Regulation Regime Transition Office Act to remove the statutory dissolution date of the Canadian Securities Regulation Regime Transition Office and to provide authority for the Governor in Council, on the Minister of Finance’s recommendation, to set another date for the dissolution of that Office.
Division 6 of Part 3 amends the Investment Canada Act to clarify how proposed investments in Canada by foreign state-owned enterprises and WTO investors will be assessed and to allow for the extension, when necessary, of timelines associated with national security reviews.
Division 7 of Part 3 amends the Canada Pension Plan to ensure that the Canada Revenue Agency can accurately identify, calculate and refund overpayments made to the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan in a particular year by contributors who live outside Quebec.
Division 8 of Part 3 amends the Pension Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act to ensure that veterans’ disability benefits are no longer deducted when calculating war veterans allowance.
Division 9 of Part 3 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to authorize the revocation of temporary foreign worker permits, the revocation and suspension of opinions provided by the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development with respect to an application for a work permit and the refusal to process requests for such opinions. It authorizes fees to be paid for rights and privileges conferred by means of a work permit and exempts, from the application of the User Fees Act, those fees as well as fees for the provision of services in relation to the processing of applications for a temporary resident visa, work permit, study permit or extension of an authorization to remain in Canada as a temporary resident or in relation to requests for an opinion with respect to an application for a work permit.
It also provides that decisions made by the Refugee Protection Division under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in respect of claims for refugee protection that were referred to that Division during a specified period are not subject to appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division if they take effect after a certain date.
Division 10 of Part 3 amends the Citizenship Act to expand the Governor in Council’s authority to make regulations respecting fees for services provided in the administration of that Act and cases in which those fees may be waived. It also exempts, from the application of the User Fees Act, fees for services provided in the administration of the Citizenship Act.
Division 11 of Part 3 amends the Nuclear Safety and Control Act to authorize the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to spend for its purposes the revenue it receives from the fees it charges for licences.
Division 12 of Part 3 enacts the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, sets out the powers, duties and functions of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister for International Trade and the Minister for International Development and provides for the amalgamation of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Canadian International Development Agency.
Division 13 of Part 3 authorizes the taking of measures with respect to the reorganization and divestiture of all or any part of Ridley Terminals Inc.
Division 14 of Part 3 amends the National Capital Act and the Department of Canadian Heritage Act to transfer certain powers, duties and functions to the Minister of Canadian Heritage from the National Capital Commission. It also makes consequential amendments to the National Holocaust Monument Act to change the Minister responsible for the construction of the monument to the Minister of Canadian Heritage from the Minister responsible for the National Capital Act.
Division 15 of Part 3 amends the Salaries Act to add ministerial positions for regional development responsibilities for northern Canada, and northern and southern Ontario. It also amends the Salaries Act to replace a reference to the Solicitor General of Canada with a reference to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. It also makes an amendment to the Parliament of Canada Act to provide that the maximum number of Parliamentary Secretaries who may be appointed is equal to the number of ministers for whom salaries are provided in the Salaries Act.
Division 16 of Part 3 amends the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act to remove the requirement for the Minister of Public Works and Government Services to obtain a request from a government, body or person in Canada or elsewhere in order for the Minister to do certain things for or on their behalf. It also amends that Act to specify that the Governor in Council’s approval relating to those things may be given on a general or a specific basis.
Division 17 of Part 3 amends the Financial Administration Act to give the Governor in Council the authority to direct a Crown corporation to have its negotiating mandate approved by the Treasury Board for the purpose of the Crown corporation entering into a collective agreement with a bargaining agent. It also gives the Treasury Board the authority to require that an employee under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Treasury Board observe the collective bargaining between the Crown corporation and the bargaining agent. It requires that a Crown corporation that is directed to have its negotiating mandate approved obtain the Treasury Board’s approval before entering into a collective agreement. It also gives the Governor in Council the authority to direct a Crown corporation to obtain the Treasury Board’s approval before the Crown corporation fixes the terms and conditions of employment of certain of its non-unionized employees. Finally, it makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 18 of Part 3 amends the Keeping Canada’s Economy and Jobs Growing Act to provide for increases to the sums that may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for municipal, regional and First Nations infrastructure through the Gas Tax Fund. It also provides that the sums may be paid on the requisition of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

In response to that, I would say, first, the fact that the procedure has already been adopted by 1 of 24 committees is not, in and of itself, significant. Second, as far as I know, during Parliament's entire history, the procedure had never been used prior to the passing of Bill C-60. There is no parliamentary tradition, then, that says independent members or members of an unrecognized caucus can be forced to submit their amendments to the House. As Mr. Saxton mentioned, this prevents them from moving the amendments and even debating them in the House at report stage.

The two are related. Without this motion, independent members, who do not have a standing right to participate in committees, could propose amendments at report stage. What this motion does, however, is prevent them from doing so because they're being given the opportunity to discuss them at a very superficial level in committee.

With respect to Bill C-60—and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Chair—independent members who were allowed to propose amendments had 30 seconds to do so.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you kindly, Mr. Chair.

I'll be fairly brief.

I want to pick up on the circumstances that prompted my colleague Mr. Saxton to put forward this motion. It was done in a hurry, without even enough copies for the entire committee. I would remind you that a total of 12 members have the great privilege of sitting on this standing committee. Along with our responsibilities as members of Parliament come certain rights. In particular, we must be given all the resources necessary to perform our duties. Furthermore, every member must have the ability to contribute to the committee equally. And above all, we must fully represent the interests of our constituents and Canadians, in general.

Luckily, Mr. Chair, you gave us a short break, which gave us time to get our thoughts straight and make up our minds on the motion. It gave us the chance to deal with the matter of the eight missing copies. From the outset, however, this situation was unacceptable and should never again be allowed to happen in committee.

I won't add to the arguments already made by my colleague Ms. Nash, in light of the major, nay fundamental, amendments proposed, amendments that clearly fall outside this committee's jurisdiction. That's the reality.

Nevertheless, I would just like to point out that earlier this year, when we were studying Bill C-60, this past spring, we were similarly asked about including independent members. At that time, independent members were prohibited from participating in the study and discussions on the bill, unless a member of the opposition gave up his or her seat. The approach was truly a disrespectful one and was obviously rejected.

Let me say, Mr. Chair, that it's perfectly acceptable to rethink a committee's format or seat distribution. That's the sort of very healthy debate that could take place elsewhere, in other situations, especially outside the valuable time allocated to our work.

Indeed, we can ask ourselves whether it is inherently necessary or fair to have party representation in committees mirror that of the House of Commons. There are places in the world where the majority party or coalition doesn't necessarily enjoy the same majority in other structures, other parliamentary institutions or other settings in which parliamentarians carry out their work.

But, given the circumstances and the way things have been done, it is, unfortunately, impossible to explore that possibility now. There is absolutely no way we can support this, if only because of the circumstances. What's more, the actual proposal will clearly infringe upon the rights of some members in the House. It's totally unacceptable, because, beyond political affiliation, the 308 members in the House are equal.

That's all, Mr. Chair. Thank you for letting me speak.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just to remind all of us, the motion we are dealing with would have the effect of denying the right of or the opportunity for independent members of the House of Commons—that is, members whose parties have fewer than a dozen seats in the House—to introduce amendments at the report stage of a bill and thus give all members of Parliament the opportunity to speak to, debate, and vote on those amendments, all with the goal of improving our legislative process.

I want to repeat again that we strongly oppose this motion. We believe that the Conservatives are taking a democratic shortcut here that is not necessary and impacts on the rights of members who are elected to this House. It would mean a significant change in the way the House operates, a change in a process that has been a long-standing one, and it would have definite impacts on the rights of members of Parliament.

I want to cite O'Brien and Bosc, which makes it clear that. “It is the House, and the House alone, that appoints the members and associate members of its committees, as well as the Members who will represent it on joint committees. The Speaker has ruled that this is a fundamental right of the House. The committees themselves have no powers at all in this regard.” That's on page 1,019.

Furthermore, in another passage, it is stated, “The Standing Orders specifically exclude a non-member from voting, moving motions or being counted for purposes of a quorum.” That's on page 1,018. In other words, the committee has no powers to make this sort of procedural change on its own. These powers lie within the House and its Speaker.

The Conservatives claim there would be no infringement on the rights of independent members, but these members would be required to submit motions and then would be excluded from voting on these motions.

In addition, during last spring's committee study of Bill C-60, committee members were given a choice in regard to including independent members. Independent members were prohibited from participating in the debate and study on the content of the bill unless an opposition member was willing to give them their seat on the committee. This scenario was bound to infringe on some members' rights, for it can surely be argued that independent members cannot be required to submit amendments to the committee when they are not permitted to participate in the committee study, while requiring opposition committee members to give up their seats and participation in order to accommodate independents certainly tramples on their rights as committee members.

When it came to moving motions, independents were allowed to move their motions for amendment and speak very briefly to them, but were excluded from voting on them. In the normal course of the committee stage, each party submits motions for amendment and then the parties' representatives on the committee vote on them. The proposed changes certainly put independent members at a democratic disadvantage.

In short, our experience with this process was not positive, and we believe it infringed on members' rights. It's particularly undemocratic that the Conservatives would bring this motion forward in committees, which have no power to make this sort of procedural change and where the very members in question in the motion are excluded both from debate and from voting. I do notice that a letter by three independent members has been circulated to us as members on the committee. It was addressed to the chair of the committee, and it attempts to insert their voice into this process because they have no voice in and no standing on this committee.

For these reasons we do not believe that this is an appropriate motion for this committee. We think it infringes on members' rights. It's not healthy for our democratic process.

Again, Mr. Chair, we'll be opposing it.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-4 is a sad new piece of legislative art from the Conservatives. What a masterpiece.

Much like the three omnibus bills before it—Bill C-38, Bill C-45 and Bill C-60—this fourth bill includes some 70 legislative measures—why not—most of which have very little to do with the budget. The bill even creates two brand-new laws: the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Act and the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board Act.

With this bill, the Conservatives are trying once again to force major changes through Parliament, without letting us do our job.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has already pointed out numerous times that members of Parliament do not have access to the information they need to fulfill their critical role and improve our laws. He had to threaten to take the government to court for the Conservatives to finally bother to reveal their budget cut plan. However, here we are again with another omnibus bill.

The Minister of Finance tabled budget 2013 in Parliament on March 21. The budget cuts thousands of public service jobs and makes cuts to program spending. The budget proposes a host of unwarranted economic austerity measures that do not help Canadians.

Bill C-4 to implement certain provisions of the budget undermines the health and safety protections in place for workers. It is a direct attack on public servants and labour unions. It causes irreparable damage to our research system and puts employment insurance firmly under the minister's control.

I am particularly concerned for the Canadian public and especially for the constituents in my riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and Dorval.

This bill removes from our health and safety officers the authority granted to them under the Canada Labour Code. It significantly weakens the ability of employees to refuse to work in dangerous conditions. It grants virtually all health and safety powers to the minister. This concentration of power in the hands of a minister is very dangerous, especially when we are dealing with a Conservative minister.

When the Conservatives attack the Canada Labour Code, they are attacking something that Canadians worked hard to build over the years to make their working conditions healthier and safer. This is the opposite of progress. This is a step backwards, just like everything else the Conservatives do. They should instead be seeking ways to protect Canadians from having to work in situations that expose them to unacceptable risks. They should protect workers.

I had the opportunity to study occupational health and safety in my university program. I took a course that required students to conduct workplace risk assessments. Therefore, I can say that centralizing everything is exactly the opposite of what companies do to identify risks in order to provide appropriate solutions concerning occupational health and safety.

For all these reasons, the NDP will certainly oppose this proposal, which affects the fundamental rights of workers in terms of occupational health and safety.

Bill C-4 would also make changes that would allow the minister to determine which services are essential in the public service, in such a way that he could well undermine collective bargaining rights.

We know that the Conservatives do not like unions. This is another attack. This is a direct violation of the social dialogue in the public service. By destabilizing the relationship between the negotiating parties, the government is giving itself the means to gag workers in the public service. It is restricting their right to challenge the deterioration of working conditions due to the unjustified cuts imposed by the Conservatives themselves. By slashing jobs, they are creating the conditions for conflict. They now want to ignore the consequences by preventing workers from expressing their frustration and their complaints.

However, some services seem to be less essential than others, particularly when objective scientific results contradict the Conservatives' vision and plans. They fired hundreds of scientists without considering the medium- or long-term consequences of their decision.

Now, Bill C-4 is taking aim at National Research Council Canada and dealing a final blow to our public research system. Well done.

As a final step in their attempt to systematically bleed the labour market dry on the pretense of flexibility, the Conservatives are using Bill C-4 to eliminate the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board and give the Minister of Finance the power to manipulate rates.

Do the Conservatives want to turn their backs on federal responsibility in this area by dumping it onto the provinces or directly onto the public?

Bill C-4 also extends the $1,000 hiring tax credit for small business. I acknowledge that that is a step in the right direction, but it is nowhere near enough. The NDP is looking further ahead and proposing a $2,000 hiring tax credit that would not come out of the employment insurance fund and would help businesses hire and train young workers.

I want to keep talking about small businesses. The Conservatives are going ahead with their $350 million tax hike on labour-sponsored venture capital funds. However, it is well known that venture capital is essential for creating and developing businesses. Just listen to our entrepreneurs. Alain-Jacques Simard, CEO of TeraXion, a Quebec company that specializes in fibre optics, said that the Fonds de solidarité FTQ acted as a catalyst and that since its January 2010 investment, his company's sales have doubled. That is important to remember.

The Conservatives like to remind everybody that they were elected to lower taxes, but not for unions, apparently. That is very strange. Attacking a financing system does not make sense unless it is part of an agenda to do whatever it takes to undermine the economic influence of Canadian workers and unions.

Still on the subject of small businesses, Bill C-4 increases the lifetime capital gains exemption and indexes it. The NDP supports increasing the lifetime capital gains exemption because that will help small business owners. The NDP knows that small businesses create a lot of jobs. However, they create those jobs only in a climate of better economic and regulatory conditions. That is why the NDP would like to see tax incentives to help these businesses hire Canadians.

We can only have a productive debate on these proposals if the Conservatives allow it. The omnibus bill will not make that possible and suggests that the Conservatives are, sadly, not willing to debate. The Conservatives are showing their true colours by attacking workers, public servants, employment insurance and unions. They are not working for Canadian families.

Household debt has reached record levels and is now at 166% of household income. This means that people are spending five months' income every three months, putting them two more months in the hole every five months. The Conservatives have no plan to address the alarming youth unemployment rate.

Bill C-4 is out of touch with what is important to Canadian families. It is a dangerous step backward. This policy is designed to destroy gains made by the middle class. It will force workers and families to pay for services that they have already paid for through their taxes.

This bill, like all of its omnibus predecessors, is a policy instrument designed to systematically destroy the social relationships that Canadians have worked hard to build over the past few decades. It is an intolerable attack on the rights of Canadian workers and Canadian families. The NDP will not stand for it.

The NDP will not support the Conservatives' latest attempt to circumvent parliamentary democracy. We should have the opportunity to debate the many subjects covered in Bill C-4 separately and refer them for study by the relevant committee. The NDP is also opposed to budget 2013 and its implementation bills, including Bill C-4, because they disregard the true priorities of Canadian families: creating good, well-paid jobs, ensuring retirement security, creating job opportunities for youth and creating more affordable living conditions for families.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Mr. Ravignat.

I understand your point, but I think I would still benefit from the clerk's advice as to his opinion. It doesn't preclude us from seeking others' advice or taking guidance from the two references that have been cited, from the current O'Brien and Bosc, and also from the Speaker's ruling from June 2013 when the NDP House leader raised similar objections in the House because of the occurrences at the finance committee on Bill C-60. Many of the same points you're raising were brought to the attention of the Speaker at the time, and he ruled on them. I have the ruling here if you're interested in seeing it.

The clerk is aware of those three aspects, and perhaps he could comment briefly on his view as to whether it's appropriately before this committee.

Go ahead, Chad.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The first problem that this motion raises is how it was presented. Mr. Calandra presented it by saying that he wanted to give more authority to independent members of the House. How he presented it is all fine, but in concrete terms, the motion before us does not give the independent members of Parliament more power. It does exactly the opposite by taking a very important power away from them, namely, the ability to suggest amendments at the report stage in the House of Commons. That means that they would not have the right to explain their amendments to the House of Commons. More significantly, they will not be able to vote when their own amendments are brought to a vote, because they obviously do not have the authority to vote in committee.

When an independent member of Parliament sends a letter to indicate that he or she wants to suggest an amendment, the MP can provide explanations. However, the MP will not even be able to vote when his or her own amendments are brought to a vote. We obviously don't know details about every position of the independent MPs. But we will be required to vote on amendments that they themselves suggested, that will reflect their thinking and that will show their desire to represent their constituents, while they themselves will not be able to.

The second problem with this motion is that it fundamentally changes how the House of Commons operates. As my colleague, Mr. Angus, mentioned a few times, the legality of this motion is seriously questionable. This committee cannot change the parliamentary process, which is based on the Westminster system. It does not have this power, and I highly doubt that this respects the procedures and Standing Orders of the House of Commons.

The government claims that this motion gives the independent members more power by allowing them to submit a letter to explain their amendments but it's the opposite: it is taking power away from them.

What this government is doing today is particularly contradictory. When the big omnibus Bill C-60 was tabled, independent MPs wanted to attend the committee meeting and be heard. We know that the government loves omnibus bills and that it has very little respect for democracy. The government prohibited independent parliamentarians to sit on the committee and attend the meeting. Instead, the government told the official opposition and other opposition members that if they wanted an independent member to be present, they had to give up one of their own seats.

In the past, the government never wanted to give the independent members any power or give them the right to sit on this committee. Today it claims it wants to give them more power. In concrete terms, that is exactly the opposite of what is going to happen. The independent members will no longer have the power to suggest amendments at the report stage, a fundamental power that has always been granted them in our parliamentary system, which is based on the Westminster system. What the government is actually presenting here makes no sense.

I would like to again quote from page 1019 of O'Brien and Bosc:

... It is the House, and the House alone, that appoints the members and associate members of its committees, as well as the Members who will represent it on joint committees. The Speaker has ruled that this is a fundamental right of the House. The committees themselves have no powers at all in this regard.

I repeat: we have no power here to decide how the House of Commons operates. Another committee, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, might be able to, but this is the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. Why are we debating an issue that would change how the House of Commons operates? It's really out of line, Madam Chair.

I would like to point out something else, since our motion to oppose meeting in camera was just defeated. The clause-by-clause study of bills is usually done in camera. Therefore, the independent members are now going to submit letters and they might get a quick minute to explain their amendments, but they will not even be seen by the public. The constituents of these MPs will not know what the MPs have presented. This aspect is very important. It explains why we are so opposed to this motion. The independent members already have very little power in the House of Commons, and we want to reduce it even further.

This is the only place they can give an opinion on a bill or show their constituents that they have stood up to defend an important issue for them. We are suggesting they submit a letter and then appear for a quick minute to talk about the reasoning behind their amendments, but that will be done in camera. Basically, the MPs' constituents will not know whether they oppose it. These members will not even be able to speak about the fact that they submitted amendments. I find that fundamentally problematic. They will no longer be able to rise in the House to say that they are submitting amendments and show that they are standing up for their constituents. They already have so little opportunity to do so, not counting voting when their own amendments are brought to a vote.

I would also like to point out, as my colleagues have already, that our Westminster-based system includes rules and procedures that are not always clear. They often depend on our interpretation of them. It is largely the responsibility of the Speaker of the House and the committee chairs to ensure that the standing orders are interpreted correctly.

Having said that, there are precedents. I quoted O'Brien and Bosc in that respect. In this case, we would be changing a fundamental principle of the tradition and operation of our Parliament, which operates based on the Westminster system. As my colleague mentioned, will that create a precedent? Once other countries see that Canada's House of Commons committees have taken away the ability of independent MPs to submit amendments during report stage in the House of Commons, will they say that they can as well? There would be a precedent. I think all members of this committee should be extremely concerned about the idea of creating a precedent as significant as this.

I don't want to impute motives, but I sincerely wonder whether this motion is a way of punishing former Conservative MPs who left because they were being very controlled by the Prime Minister. I sincerely wonder. If that is the case, I think it is really sad. That is not an appropriate way of doing things. It does not reflect a willingness to co-operate, to consider how things are done or to respect the members and former colleagues of the Conservative Party.

Madam Chair, I have already given the example of Bill C-60, which prevented independent MPs from participating. However, we often see that this government is changing how things are done, for example, presenting closure motions to limit debate or going in camera. The government regularly shows a lack of respect for democratic processes.

This is another example that shows us that these Conservative members have no respect for democracy or parliamentary procedure and regulations, which are fundamental for the functioning of the House of Commons and the way we do things.

We should be seriously concerned seeing such a motion. It will change how we do things and the House of Commons procedures. Basically, it will take away a very important right from independent members.

Furthermore, the independent members of Parliament are not here today and do not have the right to speak. We are discussing their rights, their future and how they will represent their constituents, without even having them present. I highly doubt that the Conservative members who moved this motion consulted them. I highly doubt that any independent members of Parliament were consulted about the content of the motion and said they were in favour of it. Can we stop deciding how other members of Parliament are going to represent their constituents? We are in the process of taking away that essential power.

So I invite my Conservative colleagues to consult the independent members of Parliament to see what they think of the motion. Since they aren't here, they can't vote against the motion or say that it will take away a fundamental right and influence how they represent the Canadians who elected them. I doubt they support how things are being done in this committee and how this motion was presented. We are claiming that we are giving them more power, but that is not true. We are in the process of taking away a fundamental right, and in its place, letting them submit a simple letter and speak for one minute to explain why they are suggesting amendments, which will probably take place in camera in any case. As a result, no one will know that these independent members spoke about an important matter.

Mr. Chair, I issued an invitation to the members of the Conservative Party. I invite them to consult their former colleagues and the other independent members of the House of Commons to see what they think about it. We cannot make a decision about their future and how they are going to represent their constituents.

Moreover, I emphatically demand that we get a legal opinion on this, because I highly doubt that this motion is in order. As members of this committee, we cannot decide how the House of Commons will operate nor can we fundamentally change the Westminster tradition here, in the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. That is not our role. That would exceed our mandate. I highly doubt that it is in order. So I ask you to seek a legal opinion.

I again invite the Conservative members of the committee to go and ask their former colleagues and the other independent members of Parliament what they think about the motion. I guarantee you that they will take issue and will not see it as a way of giving them more power. It is exactly the opposite. They will see it as taking away a fundamental right, the right to express their opinion at the report stage of a bill, to submit amendments to the House of Commons publicly, and to debate and vote when their own amendments are brought to a vote.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

It is the House, and the House alone, that appoints the members and associate members of its committees, as well as the Members who will represent it on joint committees. The Speaker has ruled that this is a fundamental right of the House. The committees themselves have no powers at all in this regard.

Further, going back one page to page 1018—actually I think “further” sounds odd if we're going backwards—it says:

The Standing Orders specifically exclude a non-member from voting, moving motions or being counted for purposes of a quorum.

In other words, the committee has no power to make this sort of procedural change on its own. The powers lie within the House and its Speaker, because the independent members have no standing at committee. So a move to take away the rights that they have in the House at committee is a breach of their fundamental rights as members of this House.

Mr. Chair, the Conservatives claim there would be no infringement on their rights as independent members, but that's clearly not the case, because once they submit motions, they would be excluded from voting on those motions. Within the House itself now when an independent member brings forward an amendment at report stage, they have the right to vote on their own amendment, but that right is not given to them within the committee process.

In addition, Mr. Chair, during last spring's committee study of Bill C-60, the committee members were given a choice with regard to including independent members, but the independent members were prohibited from participating in the debate and study on the content of the bill unless an opposition member was willing to give them their seat. What we are seeing again is that even if the committee were attempting to include the independent members, it would certainly infringe on rights that existed, the rights of the members who were sitting at the table.

Surely it can be argued that independent members cannot be required to submit amendments to the committee when they are not permitted to participate in the study, or that opposition committee members should be required to give up their seats in participation in order to accommodate independents. That would certainly trample on their rights as well as those of committee members.

Mr. Chair, as the official opposition, we've attempted to work with this government numerous times, despite the fact that in the House they continually abrogate our rights to represent the people we were elected to represent. They continually shut down debate on form. They continually use in camera and abuse it to get their way, but when we see the attempt to breach the fundamental rights of a member in the House and to use a back door like this, well, Mr. Chair, it's just not acceptable.

I have to say that politically I have very little in common with the independent members. I'm a proud member of the New Democratic Party. I'm proud to be in the caucus. I don't share the particular viewpoints of the independent members who are sitting on the back benches. Nonetheless, they were democratically elected by people in this country and they have as much right to be in the House as I do. I might not agree with them, just as I don't agree with many of my Conservative colleagues on very much, except maybe that it is still morning, if they're willing to concede that to me.

But Mr. Chair, I certainly am willing to defend the right of any member of this House, because if we do not stand up for the privileges of the members, then we are betraying the long history of the Westminster tradition. I think this is what my colleagues in the Conservatives need to understand. They have all the nasty little apparatchiks in the Prime Minister's Office who believe that politics is some kind of perennial war game. It's about who wins. Believing that the rules don't matter is what's gotten our Prime Minister into the deep, deep, deep trouble he's in right now.

I was astounded. Probably the clearest thing we've ever heard from our Prime Minister, we heard second-hand through Mike Duffy, and that was that the base don't understand rules and they're not interested in them. Well, the rule is the rule of law, Mr. Chair, which is why perhaps they did think they could break the law, because to them, the base doesn't understand rules; they don't understand procedures. Well, procedures are how we ensure democratic accountability.

When it comes to moving motions, independents in the House have the right to move motions for amendments and to speak to them. That's their right, Mr. Chair, but in committee, if they are offered this, that right will be taken away from them.

What will also be taken away from them is their ability to.... Well, the right that they will not have is the right to vote on their own amendments. How can they bring forward an amendment and have to be a second-class parliamentarian, such that you would have to come in and hope someone would take your case for you? Then—and my honourable colleague from the Liberal Party talked this morning about how partisan this committee is—you're having to be at the mercy of the political parties sitting around the table. That's not right for an independent.

As I said, I certainly don't have much in common politically with any of the independents, and I don't feel that it's my job to have to press their case on an amendment to a bill at report stage. I might not agree with any of their amendments, or I might agree with some of them, but I do believe they have a right to bring forward those amendments, and they have a right to vote on those amendments. Otherwise, what is being offered are no rights at all.

Mr. Chair, our experience with this process so far is very concerning, because we're talking about the infringement of rights. I think it is particularly undemocratic of the Conservatives to bring this motion to committee, which has no power to actually make this procedural change and where the members, in question and motion, are excluded from both debate and voting.

Mr. Chair, I would ask you again, so that this is not a kangaroo court and that our rights as members are not infringed upon by having to participate in another bully court of the Conservative PMO.... I believe that our fundamental rights as members are being infringed upon by being asked to take away the rights of members in the House of Commons. I do not believe that this is proper. I believe it's an abuse of this standing committee, particularly when this is the committee that is entrusted with the issues of ethics and accountability.

For us to be using this committee, of all committees, to take away that right of an independent member, I believe, is absolutely unconscionable, Mr. Chair. I'm asking you to get a legal opinion for us from the clerk's office, because you could rule this out of order, but we again will see that the members on the other side will just overrule you. This is how they.... They're not interested in the long-standing traditions. They will get what they want because they're being told from the boys upstairs how to act.

What happens, Mr. Chair, if these committees establish a precedent? It's not just for the Canadian parliamentary system that it's at stake. We're talking about the Westminster tradition. These are rules that come into effect and then are judged, just as in a court of law, in other jurisdictions. The other parliamentary traditions will ask, “What did they do in Canada?” They will say that in Canada it was considered okay for a committee to be used to take away the rights of members in the House.

For the concern over the issue of precedent, Mr. Chair, this is simply not acceptable, so I'm asking you before we vote on this.... I'm certainly not willing to vote on this until we have a legal opinion, because I'm not willing to sit here and have my rights as a member undermined by this kind of bogus representation.

I'd like to know, Mr. Chair, if it's possible for us to get this opinion. I certainly will be seeking it myself, and I will be encouraging my independent colleagues, who are not here and who have no right to speak here, in that they have a right to have that legal opinion heard before any kind of vote like this proceeds.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I must rise today to object to this terrible and completely undemocratic habit of the Conservative government. This is the fourth omnibus bill it has introduced. Another mammoth is wandering the halls of the House of Commons. The bill is over 300 pages long. Even the President of the Treasury Board admits that you would have to talk to half the people in cabinet to understand everything that is in this bill.

In such an unwieldy document, it is easy to make mistakes without realizing it, for example, increasing the tax rate of credit unions from 15% to 28%. This forced the Minister of Finance to quietly correct his bad policy in the bill that is before us today.

The NDP is disappointed that the Conservatives refuse to learn from their mistakes and insist on presenting Canadians with a fourth omnibus bill.

The government is voluntarily preventing Parliament from engaging in a point-by-point debate of these reforms that are harmful to Canadians. As we saw with the Duffygate scandal, here is another 300 pages of proof that the Conservatives prefer camouflage to transparency.

I cannot talk about this bill without mentioning the changes that will affect Canadians' right to a healthy and safe working environment. This bill removes the powers granted to health and safety officers by the Canada Labour Code and gives those powers to the minister. It significantly weakens employees' ability to refuse to work in hazardous conditions and places nearly all powers related to health and safety in the hands of the minister. It seems to me that the three changes I just mentioned do not respect workers' rights.

The NDP firmly believes that no worker should ever be forced to work in hazardous conditions.

Another aspect of this bill that concerns me is the attacks on the public service. This is another case of interference. The minister can now arbitrarily designate which services are essential without basing that decision on an objective analysis. These powers could be used to completely take away the right of some workers to collective bargaining. That is unacceptable and it violates the fundamental rights of workers.

This reminds me of a story that was published in Le Devoir last week. A public servant who works for employment insurance's integrity services was formally dismissed for revealing to Le Devoir that quotas were being imposed on EI investigators. Today, this courageous woman voiced her concerns about the way whistleblowers are treated. She said:

I acted in the public interest and I am paying a very high price because of it. It is a dreadful experience to go through and to live with, especially because no one wants to hire a whistleblower. It has ruined my career, and my life.

I sincerely hope that this woman will be able to find a decent job, because she acted in the public interest and that is very commendable.

The government is doing everything in its power to hide the truth from taxpayers, and it is exercising a disturbing amount of control. How can we have confidence in a government that is contradicting itself day after day and preventing parliamentarians from doing a good job by hiding all vital information and introducing such colossal bills?

Bill C-4 contains a wide range of complex measures, many of which are not related to the budget and deserve further consideration.

Because the government pushed through omnibus Bill C-60 last year, a number of errors slipped by unnoticed, including the tax hike for credit unions. As I mentioned earlier, the result of this mistake was that credit unions were facing a tax hike of 28% rather than 15%. Bill C-4 will fix this error.

The NDP is opposed to the tax hike for credit unions and is disappointed that the Conservatives have not learned from their mistakes and are imposing an omnibus bill once again.

I am also very disappointed with the part of the bill that eliminates the tax credit for labour-sponsored venture capital funds.

Labour-sponsored funds are an important economic development tool for small and medium-sized businesses. I want to point out that last Friday was Small Business Day. Abolishing the tax credit for this fund does not help our country's small businesses.

In the past 10 years alone, 2,239 businesses in Quebec and Canada have benefited from this tax credit, and 80% of them have fewer than 100 employees. It is estimated that the Fonds de solidarité FTQ has helped create or maintain 171,000 jobs in Quebec. So much for all the government's talk of job creation. Moreover, I do not see a single measure in this budget that will create real jobs in our communities.

Over the weekend I had the pleasure of visiting a business in my riding. The first-ever saffron farm in North America just opened in Saint-Élie-de-Caxton. I was truly impressed by this business. This is the kind of business that we need to encourage and support through tax credits for young workers, research and development and risk management programs that work. These are the things we have suggested.

I would also like to talk about the cuts being made to scientific research institutes. In Bill C-4, the Conservatives are going after the National Research Council of Canada, cutting nearly half of the jobs there and giving more powers to the president they chose. I find that extremely disheartening. In my role as deputy agriculture critic I often hear about the needs in agricultural research. I know that there are similar needs in other areas. Stakeholders have told me that independent research allows agricultural businesses to grow and set themselves apart from the competition on international markets. Innovation is a priority in the agricultural industry, and it is sad that the Conservatives are not interested in this important issue.

I see nothing in this bill that can help the people in my riding. In the spring, my office was inundated with email and mail criticizing the employment insurance reform. Now the Conservatives are dissolving the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board. The board ensured independent management of EI financing. Now the Minister of Finance has the power to manipulate the rates.

The government wants to bring Canada back to a time where the successive Liberal and Conservative governments could dip into the EI fund. Employment insurance comes from money contributed by workers and is to be used by workers. We cannot trust the Conservatives to manage EI financing. They have shown us time and again that they are not responsible. I am very concerned about this measure.

We are opposed to Bill C-4 both for its content and this process. The Conservatives forced Canadians to wait an extra month for Parliament to resume in order to come up with a new political agenda. Congratulations. Now the Conservatives are forcing us to work at lightning speed to approve their bill. The government wants to quietly slip all manner of things through, which inevitably includes unpleasant surprises.

In the meantime, the economy is stagnating, families keep getting further in debt and their priorities are being ignored. We will oppose budget 2013 and its implementation bills, unless they are redrafted to take into account the real priorities of Canadian families: the creation of good jobs, the assurance of a decent retirement, the creation of job opportunities for young people and a more affordable life for families. That is what people want. It takes more than just saying a few words here and there, like in the Speech from the Throne, to look good. People need action and commitment.

Canadians will have a real government in 2015.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for the fourth time in this Parliament, the Conservative government is introducing a massive bill to implement certain provisions of its last budget.

Bill C-4 is an example of why we have been criticizing this government since it came to power; it is an example of the government's lack of respect for parliamentary processes, as it imposes unrelated measures in a single piece of legislation and limits the work of members of Parliament. It is the epitome of a tired old government that has no vision for Canadians, a government whose pathological partisanship is affecting our parliamentary institutions and the interests of Canadians.

This bill amends close to 70 laws and includes a number of provisions that have nothing to do with the budget, strictly speaking. Bill C-4 contains dozens of measures that could have been introduced in separate bills. In one bill, the government is amending taxation, employment insurance rules, economic immigration parameters, arbitration in the public sector, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, and so on.

Instead of making room for real parliamentary debate, the government has crammed dozens of measures into one single piece of legislation. Instead of allowing members of Parliament to do their jobs, the government has chosen to impose an anti-democratic approach and a dogmatic vision of politics.

Not only does Bill C-4 violate the whole parliamentary process, but the Conservatives also waited until the very last minute to present the content of the bill. The bill was finally introduced 48 hours ago. We have had 48 hours to review almost 300 pages and to assess the impact of dozens of measures. This is preventing us from doing the job we were elected to do.

The Prime Minister shut down Parliament for five weeks, which is simply outrageous and unacceptable for a democratic country like Canada. Clearly, the negative consequences of this approach cannot be denied. This single vote on a huge number of measures is certainly going to limit debate, and it will increase the potential for errors. As a result, the content will be less representative.

Furthermore, a clear example of the potential danger is the mistake that caused credit unions to face a tax hike of 28% rather than 15%. An in-depth study of the measure in committee and the testimony of many witnesses would have made it possible to avoid that blunder. If parliamentary committees have one meeting only to consider such wide-ranging measures, of course, members of Parliament do not have all the tools they need for a proper review.

In the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, we had only 40 minutes to study measures in Bill C-60 that had major consequences. We had 40 minutes to study a piece of legislation that easily would have required more committee meetings. That is the anti-democratic approach the Conservatives are taking with Bill C-4.

As if the general structure of Bill C-4 was not enough of a violation of democracy, the government moved a time allocation motion yesterday to further limit debate. If that is not mocking democracy, I do not know what it is. The situation is all the more worrisome and deplorable considering that some parts of Bill C-4 have serious and troubling implications.

First of all, the budget implementation bill eliminates the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board, thereby allowing the Minister of Finance to manipulate the rates for the employment insurance fund. Clearly, the Conservative promises to make the management of employment insurance parameters more independent and transparent are now no more than a distant memory. Once again, the government is going back on its commitments and, in some cases, its own actions.

The Conservatives criticized the Liberals—and so did we for that matter—for helping themselves to and squandering the surplus in the employment insurance fund. In total, $57 billion was taken by those governments. In the past, the Conservatives rose up against that, but now, with Bill C-4, they are changing their tune once again.

With Bill C-4, the Conservatives are once more setting up the same mechanisms that allowed finance ministers, both Conservative and Liberal, to dip into the premiums paid by workers.

With access to benefits constantly decreasing, Canadians find this decision unacceptable. After all, the money involved belongs to the workers and the Conservatives are acting as if it were theirs.

We in the NDP maintain that the employment insurance fund must be managed independently and transparently. The Minister of Finance has decided otherwise by granting himself discretionary powers that will tarnish the very management of the fund.

In addition, Bill C-4 will amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act by redefining the process by which disputes are resolved in the government.

Not only is the government reserving the right to define essential services, but it is also imposing a process of binding arbitration in disputes where less than 80% of the members of a bargaining unit are performing essential services.

As a result, the Conservatives are reserving the right to define the rules on resolving disputes in the public service of Canada and to impose working conditions on its employees through arbitration.

Clearly, the government wants to give itself some elbow room so that it can attack the unions that stand up for the rights of workers.

Amendments of this kind require discussions in depth, with other voices to be heard on the matter, not just Conservative voices. To roll out measures of this kind without real debate is to lay oneself open to regrettable errors.

That applies to the amendments to employment insurance and the dispute resolution processes in the public service. It also applies to the omnibus bill in its entirety.

In closing, never has a government shown so much contempt for our parliamentary institutions and for Canadians. Here we are with a single bill with 300 pages of measures amending about 70 acts. It is impossible for members of Parliament to do their jobs properly. Then we get a time allocation motion that restricts debate even more.

Clearly, our democracy is suffering. All the work by members of the House of Commons is also being placed in jeopardy.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member has drawn our attention to changes in Bill C-4 that were necessitated by the rush in passing the previous budget implementation bill, the changes that were unintended that caused further tax damage to credit unions.

I am also aware of changes in this new bill, Bill C-4, that will be required because of mistakes made in treating income for fishermen by failing to properly deal with the income for fishermen versus highest weeks, versus their total take for the season.

It seems to me that we can make a very good case as members of the opposition that the Conservative Party mania for refusing amendments and for pushing bills through quickly is forcing Parliament over and over again to go back and pass new legislation months later to fix mistakes. Bill C-45 fixed mistakes that were in Bill C-38. Now Bill C-4 is fixing mistakes that were in Bill C-60.

Could my hon. friend give me any of her thoughts on the problems of holding up the House through passing bills too quickly?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-4, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures. It was interesting to hear the Conservative House leader talk about the planned deficit reduction and how the Conservatives were ahead by $7 billion. A good question that would be welcomed at some point for the government to answer is exactly how much of that deficit reduction was as a result of money that did not flow to approved programs and services. We have certainly heard from communities that money they expected to see or proposals they had submitted had not been funded, despite the government announcements. Therefore, it would be good for the House to know that.

This bill is the second act to implement budget 2013. It is another budget implementation bill that is about 300 pages. This legislation amends or repeals 70 pieces of legislation. Some of what it tackles is: it strips health and safety officers of their powers and puts nearly all of these powers in the hands of the minister; it significantly weakens the ability of employees to refuse to work in unsafe conditions; it moves to eliminate binding arbitration as a method to resolve disputes in the public service; and it guts Canada's most venerable scientific research institution, the National Research Council.

I want to thank our House leader, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, for raising the fact that once again the government has limited debate. This is the fourth attempt by the Conservatives to evade scrutiny by parliamentarians and the public. In the past we had Bill C-38, Bill C-45 and Bill C-60. Canadians deserve an opportunity to hear a detailed, thorough, in-depth study of such wide-ranging pieces of legislation, yet we have the limiting of the ability of the House to scrutinize the legislation. Why should we care about that?

In the past we saw the government bring forward legislation that had errors in it. Because of the complexity of the legislation and the length of time we had to review it, the government had to bring forward subsequent legislation to correct that.

This legislation is fixing something that happened due to a technical mistake in Bill C-60, which would have doubled the taxation level of credit unions and caisse populaires. In September, tax experts discovered that the changes made in Bill C-60 would result in Quebec taxpayers being overburdened on dividends compared to taxpayers in other provinces.

Because I only have 10 minutes, I will focus on three particular aspects of the legislation.

First, the legislation would reduce the number of permanent members on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.

Second, it would fix the mistakes with respect to the tax hike on credit unions.

Third, it would push ahead the Conservative plan on the $350 million tax hike on labour sponsored venture capital funds.

With respect to veterans, Bill C-4 would reduce the number of permanent members on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board from 28 to 25. What is disappointing is that it was an opportunity for the Conservatives to bring forward separate legislation that looked to improve the Conservative record on veterans affairs. We know the NDP has not always been happy with the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, but simply changing numbers will not improve the situation.

In my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, the veterans office has closed and veterans are now forced to go further afield in order to get the services they require.

Just so Canadians understand a bit about the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, of the 76,446 Canadian Forces' clients of Veterans Affairs Canada, 1,400 are totally and permanently disabled and 406 of them will not receive a pension or allowance from the Canadian Forces.

The plan proposed by the ombudsman is based on an actuarial analysis to accurately determine for the first time how current benefits neglect certain veterans and will continue to neglect them unless changes are made quickly. Veterans Ombudsman Guy Parent has said that more than 400 of the most severely disabled veterans in Canada are not eligible for the Canadian Forces pension plan, while hundreds of other permanently disabled veterans could suffer the same fate and risk spending their retirement years at a lower standard of living than they had before the age of 65 due to sufficient income.

Certainly in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan we hear regularly from veterans and their families about their difficulties in accessing services, that they cannot get access to some services that they expected and that the money that is available simply does not respect and honour the service to our country that many veterans made.

I have spoken in the House previously about my father being a long-serving member of the Canadian Armed Forces and I am proud to say that I grew up on army bases from coast to coast.

I have a letter from a former member of the RCMP that talks about the assault on health care benefits for members of the armed forces and the RCMP. I will read a brief note from that because I think this is part of what the Veterans Appeal Board hears about the discrepancy and the difficulties in funding and whether a member is entitled to funding. The member said:

I have written...expressing my concern and profound disappointment with the fact that the government has arbitrarily decided to claw back so many necessary treatments after we risked our health and indeed our lives...I was assured that my health and the welfare of my family would be looked after. That sacred trust has been unabashedly broken.

While that in and of itself is repugnant, my greater fear is that once the members begin to see that their efforts in ensuring the safety of Canadians may actually result in huge costs to them, they will necessarily become more hesitant to engage in actions that risk their health and well being. This policy is short-sighted, unfair and contrary to Canadian values.

When we ask members of the armed forces or members of the RCMP to risk life and limb, we need to respect that when they come back to Canada or when they retire from the forces, they are treated in a fair and respectful manner. It would be incumbent upon the government to actually work with veterans and their families to ensure the services provided are adequate.

The second piece I will touch on is fixing the mistake on the credit unions' tax hike.

The bill introduces changes to fix a legislative error the Conservatives made by rushing the last omnibus budget bill through. Their mistake hiked taxes on credit unions to 28%, instead of the intended 15%.

I will read from the Credit Union Central of Manitoba remarks to a House of Commons standing committee on Bill C-60. The reason I quote from that previous presentation is because it highlights the importance of credit unions in our communities. In my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan we have a couple of different credit unions and they are very important in all of our communities, but in particular, in some of our smaller communities. The Credit Union Central of Manitoba said:

Many credit union branches are in communities that other financial institutions vacated because they were not deemed profitable enough. Our business model, paired with fair tax policy like the additional deduction, has made it both possible and attractive for credit unions to grow in places where our competitors have retreated.

It goes on to say that the removal in Bill C-60 of the additional deductions of credit unions would simply compound the impact of regulatory demands by requiring credit unions to pay a higher portion of their net income in federal tax and further reduce their ability to build capital, invest in new technology and stay competitive.

This was a brief that was presented when Bill C-60 was in the House for a reading and because we had limited time to debate that, there was not enough attention paid to that and other presentations on the impact of Bill C-60, so now we are amending that mistake.

It concludes its presentation by saying:

I would argue that this tax deduction has proven to be good public policy. If it were to remain in place it would continue to be good public policy because it will help credit unions provide effective competition in the financial services sector and assist with the federal government's stated desire to increase competition in this sector. It would also represent good public policy by helping maintain strong financial services in as many communities as possible and contribute to the sustainability of the many communities in rural Canada where credit unions are the only financial institution.

On the venture capital program, this has been a very successful program in British Columbia. There was an evaluation of the venture capital program and it indicated that not only did it contribute to job creation, but it also contributed to the fact that it helped grow companies which then went on to expand and become more successful companies.

Removing the supports for that program is unfortunate, particularly when the government continues to talk about the importance of job creation and supporting small business. Therefore, we would like to see the government reverse its decision on that.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I was talking about our experience under Bill C-60, and our experience with this kind of motion.

If the members who were on the committee at that time remember, it was a process where parts of the bill were sent out to other committees. Some other members examined the bill in those committees. Then it came back to this committee. We dealt with any amendments, and this is where all the votes took place.

Independent members had the opportunity to make a very brief comment. I think they had a maximum of maybe two minutes allotted to be able to present any amendments they had, but they didn't even have the right to vote on their own amendments. That, to me, seems fundamentally wrong. Surely one of the fundamental rights of a member of Parliament who is sent to Ottawa is the right to vote, and their vote represents their constituency. This motion would take away the right of independent members to vote, to be able to have an impact on the decision of their own motions. I think that is a problem. I don't think that's satisfactory.

I'm a little concerned that this kind of motion was kind of sprung on us here at the committee. It would be a fundamental change to the rules of the way this House operates.

Here we are debating this. It would impact the rights of those independent members of Parliament. What's their crime? Their only crime is that they don't belong to a political party that has enough seats in the House to have official party status. They are still elected by their constituents. They still represent their communities. Every single member of Parliament, whether they are in an officially recognized party or not, has exactly the same rights as others when it comes to that vote and representing their communities.

What I see this motion doing is it's taking away their right to vote. I don't think that makes any sense. I'm concerned that this is something the government is proposing, apparently, in all or in most committees. It would fundamentally change the way we work here. It seems to me to miss the nature of the problem. To me, the nature of the problem is that the government—

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Sure.

Thank you for that question. I think it's an important one. My point on this is that what sparked this reaction were the deliberations under Bill C-60, Bill C-45, and...what was the first one? Bill C-30, was it?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

It's my recollection that this issue came to light when we were dealing with Bill C-60. As members of this committee who were members of the last committee will recall, Bill C-60 was one of these large omnibus budget implementation acts that included not only finance measures but a whole range of other measures that were all bound up in one bill. As with the latest BIA, it was a catch-all of many different changes and concerns, all bound up in one very large bill. As with the current BIA, it was pushed through. We had time allocations; we had severe time restrictions on our ability to study that bill. It makes it extremely difficult for members of the committee and other members in the House to be able to study and have input into changes that quite frankly should not just be the purview of the finance committee. We see changes to the navigable waters act, changes to the Indian Act, changes that will affect the RCMP, national security, and a whole range of issues in this latest bill. We even have some Supreme Court appointments thrown into the latest BIA.

This makes it extremely difficult for members to grapple with these bills. I think that is the fundamental problem we're facing. This method of throwing all of the government's agenda into one bill and then restricting the amount of debate and the amount of time members have to learn what's in the bill, to be able to discuss and debate it, is at the root of this issue.

I question whether this particular issue of independent members has been a concern in the House going back a number of years. It first came to this committee—again, if my recollection is correct—with the omnibus BIA, Bill C-60. To me, the fundamental problem is not the role of independent members; it is the nature of these omnibus budget bills. I think that's what we should be taking a look at.

With our past experience, it's been extremely difficult for members of this committee, let alone other members in the House, to even know the contents of these bills and be able to give adequate input and suggestions and to have discussion on this kind of bill. We've said this many times: it's not a good way of developing legislation.

What we do notice is that mistakes get made, and the government has to go back and correct those mistakes in subsequent BIAs, which they are doing in this one—correcting some past mistakes. One of the mistakes affected my community directly. It pertained to credit unions. We have a number of credit unions in the riding of Parkdale—High Park. I know some of you from out west have many, many credit unions in your communities. They were beside themselves that their taxes would be double what the banks were paying because of a mistake that was made in the last BIA. Now that it's been discovered and highlighted, the government is trying to correct that in this BIA.

The haste with which laws are being passed and the number of laws that are being thrown into one overarching bill are, in essence, what is causing the problem. I can say very concretely that for credit unions, for example, that had year-end reporting in the period between the adoption of Bill C-60 and the correction of this measure, there has been considerable stress and anxiety, because they have to budget and plan for that doubling of their tax. Even if the government intended to increase their taxes to match those of the banks, which we disagreed with, inadvertently, in its haste, it doubled the amount of tax they would pay to even more than what the banks are paying.

We think if there is a problem and we want to correct that problem, we should be looking at the very nature of these omnibus budget bills. There are a great many changes that have nothing to do with budgets or finance that are thrown into these bills.

I can tell you that when the finance committee ends up dealing with massive changes to the navigable waters act, which has nothing to do with finance, there's a serious problem with the way we are crafting legislation in this country. It doesn't make for good legislation. It doesn't make for good democratic process.

I believe at heart that what my colleague opposite, Mr. Saxton, wants to do with his motion is to improve the democratic process. I think he's addressing the wrong problem in order to do that. The fundamental problem is these omnibus budget bills.

Canadians as a whole are very uncomfortable with how legislation is being made. The measures that are being adopted lead to mistakes and do not lead to the best outcome.

I've said this before, but I will take the opportunity to say it again. If the government wants to make changes, say, to the navigable waters act or to the Indian Act or to the National Research Council, or on other environmental measures, it has a majority. The normal practice would be to introduce bills that pertain to each subject; they would go to the appropriate parliamentary committee, the members of which would have the expertise and the experience and would have worked in those specific fields, and they would have the opportunity to examine, discuss, debate, amend, and adopt bills in those areas.

Frankly, the practice of bringing omnibus bills to this committee and then parcelling some parts out to other committees for them to review with very little time—sometimes they get one meeting—and then bringing those sections of the bill back to finance, where ultimately we vote on them, has not been a great practice. What happens is that those who know about the subject—whether it be the environment or the National Research Council or labour legislation—the MPs who actually know about those areas and who may have questions and who hear witnesses and debate those issue, are not ultimately the ones who get to vote at committee on those bills. I think that's a real problem.

Fundamentally, it's the issue of omnibus budget bills that has created this problem.

Now, in our experience here at the finance committee, the Conservatives proposed something very similar to this motion to deal with Bill C-60, and we did oppose it at the time. We didn't think it was the right way to go because it would deny a long-standing practice for independent members who don't sit on the committee to take their amendments to the House.

Perhaps the intention of the government was to try to reach out and offer them the opportunity to participate in committees that they don't sit on. I'll assume that it was a positive intent the government had, but what we found at the last budget implementation act we dealt with was that when these independent members tried to bring amendments to the committee, they had extremely little time to be able to present their amendments. It was—

Motion No. 2

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me to speak to Motion No. 2 moved by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

The implications of this motion, both for the parliamentary process and for the conditions surrounding the members' work, are quite significant and therefore require meaningful debate in this chamber.

True to form, the Conservatives again introduced an omnibus measure that thoroughly confuses the debate and changes the discussion on the most controversial parts.

As it did with the mammoth bills, the government is using questionable tactics to try to push its agenda and bury the contentious measures within a whole raft of technical items.

The motion by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons deals with so many items that it becomes difficult to focus the discussion.

It addresses legislative proceedings, the parliamentary calendar, the Board of Internal Economy, committees and the hearings conducted by those committees.

It goes from themes such as expenditure management to topics like missing and murdered aboriginal girls and women.

Accordingly, in one single vote, we are to take a position on the motion's numerous components, which do not really have anything in common other than being the direct result of the Conservatives' tactics.

This makes no sense, but more than that, it is a denial of democracy, as well as yet another example of the Conservatives' flagrant lack of respect for parliamentary institutions.

In short, the Conservatives are continuing to demonstrate their contempt for Canada's parliamentary institutions.

Fortunately, last week, the House Leader of the Official Opposition rose on a point of order, and rightly so. I commend the Speaker for his fairness in agreeing to separate the vote on the motion.

In addition to considering the fact that this is an omnibus motion, we need to look at the content. The first part is undoubtedly the most questionable.

In part (a) of the motion, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is proposing that a bill introduced within 30 sitting days of this motion being passed will be deemed in the current session to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation of the previous session.

Of course, it must be identical in form to the version introduced in the previous session. Consequently, the government could reinstate legislation at the stage it was at before the House was prorogued.

However, before I delve further into the content of part (a), I think it is important to understand the context of this aspect of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons's motion.

First, it is important to remember that the government had parliamentarians sit until midnight at the end of the last session and then hastily adjourned the proceedings on June 19.

After forcing members to work overtime, the Conservatives then robbed parliamentarians of precious hours of debate, which makes no sense. It would be like a company forcing its employees to work overtime to then lay them off before the end of a contract.

Second, it is important to point out that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said this on May 22:

...we are seeking to allow debate to continue until midnight every night so we can get more done, have more debate, have more democracy...

That is an interesting paradox, because despite what his House leader says, on September 13, the Prime Minister asked the Governor General to prorogue proceedings until October 16, 2013.

That was the fourth prorogation since 2006. Coming from a government that claims to want more democracy, this leaves something to be desired .

By doing so, the government is responsible for many negative effects, the impact of which is already being felt and will continue to be felt.

First of all, five weeks of parliamentary work were lost because of the Prime Minister's partisan recklessness.

We lost five weeks during which we could have moved committee work forward; five weeks during which we could have debated various pieces of legislation; five weeks during which opposition members could have asked nearly 1,000 questions in the House of Commons.

This decision also blocked the process surrounding the legislative error in Bill C-60 regarding tax hikes on credit unions. This measure will have a direct impact on institutions like Desjardins, whose taxes will double.

At the same time, the savings accounts and debt levels of Canadians who use those services will be affected. The additional delays caused by prorogation will only add to the uncertainty surrounding this error in Bill C-60.

Similarly, prorogation also created some stumbling blocks in the passing of legislation to stop discrimination against transgendered people, as well as the creation of a special committee to address the issue of missing and murdered aboriginal women. These groups within our population really deserve our full support, along with quick and effective action.

While the government is putting its own partisan interests first, victims will just have to wait. Behind the Prime Minister's decision are the real victims who need us.

Finally, environmental studies on habitat conservation, the Great Lakes, the groundwater near the oil sands and the impact of climate change on northern fish populations were all dropped because Parliament was shut down. That is what we have to remember. Can the environment really wait until it fits the Prime Minister's agenda? I sincerely doubt it.

Clearly, the decision to prorogue Parliament—the main goal of which was to merely serve the partisan interests of this government—had very serious consequences.

Did we need to lose five weeks of parliamentary activity to do that? No. Did we need to miss out on all the work that could have been accomplished? No. Did we need to disrupt the legislative processes that were under way only to come back to most of them in the end? No. This whole situation is ridiculous.

Today, what the House leader is trying to do by moving an omnibus motion is to clean up the mess that his political party made. The Conservatives want to solve a problem that they caused. Let us face it. It does not make much sense.

Rather than acting in the interests of Canadians from the outset, the government has gotten caught up in trying to fix the mess it made with its own actions. Rather than taking action and holding debates in September, the Conservatives simply decided to shut Parliament down.

This series of positions and actions taken by the government demonstrates the Conservatives' ambivalence toward managing parliamentary procedure, something which—let us not forget—they have been doing in an authoritarian, questionable and anti-democratic way. Their management style is the hallmark of an old party that has lost all interest in parliamentary affairs.

On the one hand, they are setting an overloaded schedule and forcing members to hastily debate bills, as they did last spring. On the other hand, they are limiting the time for debate by moving countless time allocation motions and even rising early.

Recently, they completely bypassed the parliamentary process by proroguing the previous session. Now, a few weeks later, they are trying to bring it back by introducing a measure to that effect in an omnibus motion. This is déjà vu.

The government's piecemeal management style has consequences and brings Canada's democratic institutions and the Conservative Party as a whole into disrepute.

Getting back to the motion, we believe that we should pick up where we left off with some pieces of legislation. However, did the legislative process really have to be delayed by five weeks? Definitely not. What we are most critical of is not the proposed measure but its operationalization and, above all, the reasons why we are having this debate.

Regardless of the reasons why the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons introduced Motion No. 2, we have the right to question which specific bills will be fully brought back in their previous versions. We could also ask about the number of pieces of legislation that will be introduced again and then the pertinence of a new throne speech if the government has the same agenda.

Yesterday, there were absolutely no new ideas or any sign of a plan that would bring people together and provide a formal direction. The throne speech's lack of substance makes me seriously wonder about the real reason for the prorogation. All this time and the potential for action were lost simply for partisan reasons. Why prevent parliamentarians from doing their job by closing Parliament if the Prime Minister has nothing new to offer? Why limit the work done by the opposition if the Conservative Party claims to be championing accountability?

It is up to the government to respond.

In theory, a throne speech must set somewhat of a new course and bring something new to the legislative landscape. Restoring the bulk of the bills from the last session would demonstrate that this is a public relations exercise intended to muzzle the opposition and cover up the Conservative scandals.

In short, with respect to section (a) of Motion No. 2, it is obvious that the leader is trying to hide the Prime Minister's lack of vision regarding the prorogation of Parliament. The government wanted to clear the legislative agenda and then fully restore it. This validates the criticism that prorogation and the throne speech were just a smokescreen used to draw attention away from the scandals in which the Conservatives are mired.

That said, there are some parts of the government House leader's omnibus motion that our party agrees with, for example, the proposal to hold public hearings regarding replacing the Board of Internal Economy with an independent body. More specifically, it suggests that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be responsible for holding the hearings, and the Auditor General, the Clerk and the Chief Financial Officer of the House of Commons would participate. This in-depth study could result in some proposed changes to the Parliament of Canada Act, the Financial Administration Act, the Auditor General Act and any other acts as deemed necessary.

Historically, the NDP has always favoured more transparent and effective management of taxpayers' dollars, whether we are talking about government programs management or spending oversight parameters.

We believe in accountability. We believe in transparency. We are therefore open to the idea of closely examining the issue of MPs' spending and particularly the issue of an independent body overseeing this spending. We think this study deserves special attention and that the witnesses invited could be in a position to make relevant, proactive suggestions.

However, we must remember that such changes require co-operation among the different political parties as well as everyone involved. If we can work together, we can be sure to get the best possible reform that adequately reflects reality. We must absolutely come to a consensus on creating an independent structure that would oversee and control MPs' spending.

Yet another measure in this omnibus motion is the creation of a special committee to conduct hearings on the critical matter of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls in Canada, and to propose solutions to address the root causes of violence against indigenous women.

I am especially interested in this matter and I met many of these women during a demonstration on Parliament Hill last year, so I firmly believe that we have already waited far too long to act. These women and girls are waiting and they want government authorities to intervene quickly and investigate these too easily forgotten cases. They want the government to do something to stop these attacks on human dignity. That is what the NDP has been calling for for years, and that is what the government has refused to do.

Obviously, those five lost weeks will just make the process even slower than it already was and exacerbate tensions on the ground. It is pretty easy for the government to blame the official opposition, but the government created the situation itself. Had the Conservatives not made a partisan choice to prorogue Parliament, we would already be working on this issue. Unfortunately for these aboriginal women and girls, who did not choose to become victims of this scourge and government inaction, we have not been able to work on it yet.

In conclusion, the motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is nothing but a cover for the real reason the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament. We have identified countless paradoxes that indicate this government is worn out, drowning in scandal and unable to give Canadians a real vision for their society. Rather than work in Canadians' interest, the Conservatives chose to engage in pathological partisanship, and that is something the NDP has always opposed.

The motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons does address some important concerns, but unfortunately for the people we represent, it makes about as much sense as a pyromaniac firefighter.