Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-31. This is the fourth budget implementation bill that I have had the opportunity to discuss and debate in my tenure as deputy critic for finance and international trade for the official opposition.
A fairly obvious trend has emerged with these budget bills that I have debated. There is a pattern or a modus operandi, if you will.
I am going to do something that the government rarely does when debating the budget bill: I am going to discuss the budget bill. The last two speakers did not talk about it. In fact, they used the precious time of this House to talk about the budget and initiatives and also to pat themselves on the back, while ignoring the most negative aspects and this government's often poor record on the economy.
I was saying that there is a trend that has emerged with these budget implementation bills. I have noticed that the government routinely adheres to eight criteria when it introduces such bills.
The first concerns size. Budget bills are always mammoth affairs. As my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley mentioned, the English version of the bill is 350 pages long, and the French version is even longer, at 380 pages.
Not only is the size—380 pages—absolutely incredible, but what the bill covers is absolutely incredible because it talks about a lot of things.
Size is one of the criteria. There are 380 pages in the French version. In the past, some bills have been 700 to 800 pages in length. One budget bill even reached 920 pages, if I am not mistaken. That seems to be one of the government's criteria in its attempt to confuse and expedite a complex process. It wants to get through it as quickly as possible and with as much confusion as possible. However, the government should tread carefully in this process.
The government's second criterion is that a budget implementation bill should create, eliminate or amend at least 10 laws. In this case, more than 50 laws are amended or created with a single bill.
At the end of the process, the House will vote on a series of measures. We can give only a single yes or no, not including the votes that took place at the reading stages or during committee work, which I will touch on later.
The third criterion that the government seems to adhere to in drafting its budget bills is that the bill must include several elements that have nothing to do with the budget or fiscal matters. For example, this bill will amend the Judges Act and add four judges to the Quebec Superior Court and an extra one in Alberta. All of that is in a budget bill. Why does the government not want to introduce a bill to amend that act on its own, so that it can be studied independently? That is not the case here.
Using budget bills as a catch-all seems to be one of this government's tactics and a criterion for drafting such bills. People have spoken out against it. Many opposition speeches in the House quoted comments the Prime Minister made when he was in opposition and he strongly criticized the approach that he is now using on a regular basis.
The fourth criterion is that not only must the bill include several elements that have nothing to do with fiscal matters or the budget tabled, it must also create, not amend, laws that have nothing to do with the budget or fiscal issues. For example, the last three divisions of part 6 of the bill create three different laws, including one about the Champlain Bridge and one about the management of administrative tribunals. Those are extremely important elements that should, if we are talking about creating a law, be studied separately from a budget implementation bill.
The government seems to be favouring a fifth criterion. We have seen this a number of times in previous bills, and we are seeing it again here. The government thinks that a budget bill should put and concentrate new powers in the hands of various ministers. Last year, we saw bills that gave unprecedented powers to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, to the Minister of Finance, and to various ministers, in fact.
This time is no exception. Indeed, in the Hazardous Products Act amended by this bill, derivatives in securities will be amended by giving much more discretion to the ministers in question. Obviously, we can only engage in minimal discussion on the matter, because the bill is 350 pages long, and the government will push it through as quickly as possible. If the government stays on trend, which it usually does, it will start with a time allocation motion that is likely to come some time today or maybe tomorrow.
The government is using a sixth criterion. Actually, criteria 6, 7 and 8 are a lot alike. According to this sixth criterion, at least one legislative amendment should be in a bill like this one to restrict the rights of workers. This was systematic in previous bills and it is this time, too, since changes are being made to the Hazardous Products Act. The bill will amend features relating to occupational health and safety, as in previous bills that also restricted the rights of workers. These bills not only restrict the rights of workers, but they restrict the rights of immigrants as well.
Two specific clauses in this bill will affect them significantly by taking away rights and things that immigrants in Canada have access to. Those clauses will therefore limit access to social programs—or the restrictions may even be related to eligibility issues.
Finally, there is an eighth and final criterion. It seems that this budget bill, like previous budget bills, absolutely must contain at least one measure related to the government's so-called law and order agenda. Why is such a measure being included in a budget bill? The reason is that the government thinks it can get away with including this measure without providing any real reasons for doing so.
The government does not take the role of the House seriously. I do not think that it takes the essential democratic nature of the House seriously. It has never done so and continues to disregard it. As I mentioned, the Conservatives plan to move a time allocation motion. They have done so systematically with every other budget bill and with all of the legislation they introduce. The Conservatives seem to think that debate in the House is a trivial matter. Right now, they have a majority and they can do what they want. They can vote how they want and use their majority to pass the various bills that they, as a government, have deemed to be a priority. What is left for us as the opposition in the House? What remains of the role of the House if the government ignores the specific nature of the House of Commons when debating bills?
The specific role that MPs play, regardless of whether there is a minority or majority government, is to debate the essence of the government's bills and proposals. That is the real value of the House. We do not debate for the fun of it or to fill the pages of Hansard but to determine what the strengths and weaknesses of the government's proposals are. We do not debate bills just so that we, as MPs, can get informed but so that the government can learn about any inherent weaknesses in its bills. It is only natural that there will be problems, since we are all human. The people who propose and draft bills are human. Some factors may have been overlooked or may not have been considered.
It is our role as the official opposition and as MPs on the other side of the House to point these things out to the government, whether it be through debates in the House or through the discussions that take place at meetings of the Standing Committee on Finance, which is where budget implementation bills go to be examined.
The government is bypassing the entire process. At second reading, instead of allowing many members to participate in the debate, the government is limiting the number of speeches to 15 to 20 members, depending on the government's time allocation motion, or the gag order, as it is known in Quebec. The government is doing itself a disservice. With this approach, the government is hurting itself and the good governance of the country.
I still do not understand why it systematically acts in this way. Since it was elected in 2011, the government has imposed some 60 gag orders during the study of various bills. Why? What is the danger? We can debate those bills and find shortcomings, whether at second reading, at report stage or at third reading. This is an opportunity to rectify the situation and to prevent the government from doing itself a disservice.
The latest problems facing the government in its implementation of the provisions of the budget implementation bill are indicative of the weak position in which the government puts itself.
This budget implementation bill contains a major correction to a measure that we had denounced at the time and brought to the government's attention. Why did budget 2013 have to impose the GST on the parking revenue of hospitals? Hospitals were excluded from that measure. In 2013, when the government brought it in, we said that it was a mistake.
The government should not try to tax hospitals, since they play a specific role and parking is a source of revenue for them, but certainly not a source of profit. However, the government turned a deaf ear and decided to impose the GST on the parking revenue of hospitals. Then the Conservatives realized that we were right and they were wrong. Budget 2014 and this bill are reversing that measure. They once again exempt hospitals from GST on their parking revenue.
Not only are the Conservatives backtracking after ignoring the opposition's recommendations, but they are also trying to hide their mistake, claiming that this is a new tax cut. However, this is a tax that they themselves imposed.
Let us be honest and recognize that no party in the House has a monopoly on truth; no party can claim never to have made a mistake. Let us recognize that we should work together to improve bills. We can disagree on the government's agenda for the economy. We have made no secret of that; we talk about it and debate it all the time. However, when it comes to implementing specific measures that affect all Canadians, we should take our role much more seriously.
I would like to give another example of something that happened in budget 2013 and subsequent implementation bills to show that the government does not learn from its mistakes. My colleague mentioned this, and it is worth bringing up again. I am talking about the rules for appointing Quebec judges to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court ruled on the appointment of Marc Nadon. The government tried to change the rules retroactively in a section of its last budget implementation bill, which we talked about. Over and over in the House and the Standing Committee on Finance, we told them that, first of all, it had nothing to do with the budget and should be studied separately, and second, that they could not change the rules retroactively, that they got themselves in trouble and that they should fix the problem without resorting to the budget or trying to pass retroactive legislation that would have no impact. We were right, and the Supreme Court agreed. We predicted the Supreme Court's reaction.
Are those the only elements? No. Other mistakes have happened because the government forces us to study such huge, complicated bills so quickly. Last year, the government passed a measure to eliminate an exemption for credit unions and caisses populaires.
This involved a lower tax rate for not-for-profit credit unions, which were benefiting from a special tax exemption. Although they were being taxed at 11%, the government wanted to tax them at the overall corporate tax rate, 15%. However, the bill and the wording of the amendment were so botched that in the end, the government did not take certain details into account that would have brought the tax rate for these credit unions and caisses populaires not to 15%, but to 28%. They would have paid 13% more than chartered banks whose primary objective is to make a profit and pay dividends to their investors and shareholders.
That was the result of a process that completely ignores the role of the House and our role as parliamentarians, MPs and representatives of our constituents. We must act in their best interest, always taking into account the common good and all the consequences our actions can have for laws and regulations.
I will take the few minutes I have left to talk about a final point that, I think, demonstrates this government's blatant disregard for the process. We often hear about a democratic process. The government should adopt a process of good governance specifically with respect to budget bills. I would like to talk about how these issues are dealt with in committee.
I am a member of the Standing Committee on Finance. When we have to conduct certain important studies, we take our time in order to do them properly. That committee is currently examining the highly problematic issue of youth employment. We will be dedicating 10 committee meetings to it. Last year, we dedicated 12 committee meetings to the issue of tax credits for charitable organizations, to determine whether we could improve the process and enhance Canadians' contributions to charitable organizations.
When a bill of 350, 400 or 500 pages that amends 40, 50 or 60 laws comes to the Standing Committee on Finance, we may have four or five meetings at most, including meetings with the people responsible and with government representatives. Four or five meetings to discuss complex issues, such as FACTA, which could violate the privacy of thousands—if not tens of thousands—of Canadians who could be considered by the U.S. government as American citizens who owe taxes. These people could have their personal file handed over to the U.S. government without their knowledge, and they could end up owing a considerable amount of money, even though they no longer consider themselves to be American, even though they were in the past.
This issue alone should take at least four, five or six meetings. We spent six to eight meetings discussing tax havens, and FACTA, which I just mentioned, was a key part of the debate we had at the Standing Committee on Finance. However, this will be just one of many dozens and dozens of issues we will have to discuss in that committee.
The very first time the government introduced an omnibus bill, we called on the government to separate the bill into parts so that the parts could be discussed in the relevant committees. The government separated the bill, but it sent the parts to the committees—such as the immigration, public safety or justice committees—for one meeting. These committees do not even have the right to propose amendments that could then go back to the Standing Committee on Finance.
This made the whole process a farce, and the budget implementation bill, regardless of what this government says, is also a farce. I urge the government to take these issues seriously, not only for the House, but also for all Canadians, whom we represent. they have the right to a competent and transparent government. The government has always claimed to be that kind of government, so it should demonstrate that right now by separating this budget into different parts to ensure that it can be carefully studied by the committees responsible for these issues.
