Bill C-3 (Historical)

Supporting Vulnerable Seniors and Strengthening Canada's Economy Act

An Act to implement certain provisions of the 2011 budget as updated on June 6, 2011

Part 1 of this enactment implements income tax measures and related measures proposed in the 2011 budget, and income tax measures referred to in that budget that were previously announced. In particular, it
(a) amends the Income Tax Act and related legislation to allow beneficiaries of Registered Disability Savings Plans who have shortened life expectancies to withdraw more of their plan savings by permitting annual withdrawals without triggering the 10-year repayment rule, subject to specified limits and certain conditions; and
(b) amends the Income Tax Act to ensure that individuals have the legal authority in all circumstances to appeal a determination concerning their eligibility for the disability tax credit.
Part 2 amends the Excise Tax Act to introduce a 100% rebate of the goods and services tax and the harmonized sales tax paid by the Royal Canadian Legion on acquisitions of Remembrance Day poppies and wreaths. Part 2 also amends the Excise Act, 2001 and the Excise Tax Act to allow the sharing of information obtained under these statutes with countries or jurisdictions with which Canada has entered into a tax information exchange agreement.
Part 3 amends the Old Age Security Act to allow an amount to be added to the amount of benefits payable to certain low-income beneficiaries.
Part 4 authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for various purposes.
Part 5 amends the Auditor General Act to repeal a provision that provides for mandatory retirement.
Part 6 amends the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act to change the rules concerning interest paid by part-time students.
Part 7 enacts the Protection of Residential Mortgage or Hypothecary Insurance Act, which is designed to support the efficient functioning of the housing finance market and the stability of the financial system in Canada by authorizing the Minister of Finance to provide protection in respect of certain mortgage or hypothecary insurance contracts. It also makes consequential amendments to the National Housing Act and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act and repeals Part 9 of the Budget Implementation Act, 2006.
Part 8 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to authorize additional payments to certain provinces in respect of major transfers.
Part 9 amends the Insurance Companies Act to prohibit a federal mutual company from distributing its property or other benefits to policyholders and shareholders, until the Minister of Finance has approved a conversion proposal made in accordance with the regulations.
Part 10 amends the Assessment of Financial Institutions Regulations, 2001 to modify the assessment of financial institutions and validates amounts assessed after May 31, 2001.
Part 11 amends the Financial Administration Act to permit departments to enter into agreements respecting the provision of internal support services. It also authorizes the transfer of money when a power, duty or function or the control or supervision of a portion of the federal public administration, is transferred under section 2 or 3 of the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act.
Part 12 amends the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 to allow the Governor in Council to make regulations exempting vessels, and authorizing the Minister of Transport to temporarily exempt vessels, from the registration requirements in Part 2 of that Act. This Part also amends the Act to allow for the registration of a group of vessels as a fleet in the small vessel register, under a single certificate of registry and single official number.

Supporting Vulnerable Seniors and Strengthening Canada's Economy Act

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the history of amortized mortgages and that is why our government and the finance minister recognized early on that the recession was actually going to take hold in a number of areas in the world where the housing market was going to be responsible for a significant decline. Thanks to the finance minister of the Conservative government, the amortized time period was, in fact, reduced a first time to 35 years, then again to 30 years.

A number of other measures have been taken to ensure that fixed mortgage rates are sustainable and achievable. We are going to continue to take care of Canadians in the housing market area. We are going to have some significant oversight thanks to this bill.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I too was at the committee meeting and I saw the NDP vote for the bill. I thought the NDP members were reassured when they heard the imperative reasons for the increase to $300 from $250. They also heard that the legislation would create transparency.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance talk about the imperative of moving forward quickly in terms of allowing Canadians to have options?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

It is imperative, Mr. Speaker. This is an urgent matter because the finance minister and this government need to have the ability to take immediate action should we find ourselves in any kind of a situation where a recession is again a risk.

There are countries around the world that are at risk, and we just need to look at some of the European countries, like Greece. We must be prepared for any kind of a downturn in the world that might affect us. That is why it is urgent. We must ensure the housing market has some oversight. Without this legislation, we cannot do that.

I would implore members of the House to consider that. I would implore the NDP members to again vote for the bill as they did in committee to ensure the housing market is protected.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-3, the budget implementation bill.

The government has actually not made the case as to why it is rushing the bill through this House, particularly regarding part 11 on shared services and part 7 on residential mortgages.

On the shared services issue, during my tenure as the former minister of public works, I led the way forward for reform of the Department of Public Works. At that time we were in times of very significant surplus. I recognized the importance of always respecting every hard-earned tax dollar we received from Canadians during good times and bad time, in surplus and deficit, and ensuring that we delivered the best possible services to Canadians, and got the best value for tax dollars received.

That is why we in the Paul Martin government engaged in a very extensive expenditure review process. We had an expenditure review committee of cabinet. I was part of that committee. Without reducing services to Canadians, we were able to find billions of dollars in savings within the Government of Canada.

Within the Department of Public Works alone, we were able to identify $3 billion over five years and a billion every year after that by reforming procurement. I remember the hon. Walt Lastewka, who was the parliamentary secretary to public works and the former member of Parliament for St. Catharines, helped lead that. He brought his experience as a procurement expert from General Motors to the department and helped lead some of those reforms.

We were reforming the way we managed our real estate. We used efficiencies, including outsourcing certain types of services to get better value and provide better services to our tenants, which were government departments. We were modernizing all the procurement and real estate services in a way that ultimately saved billions of dollars without reducing services. We did it by working with the public servants.

I remember the day after I was sworn in as minister, as we were going through some of these proposals and ideas, we made a decision very quickly to engage the 14,000 public servants in a discussion about the plans to modernize the department. We did not hide our plans to reduce costs and to get better value for taxpayers. We did not hide those plans from the public service. We decided to engage the public service fully.

In fact, I did town hall meetings across Canada with 1,400 people coming out to a town hall meeting in Gatineau to 400 in Halifax. We engaged public servants at the grassroots. We engaged them not simply as union members but as citizens, as taxpayers, as public servants who were drawn to the public service with a desire to serve Canadians, to do a good job and to make a difference.

What we see with the government is a lack of respect for the public service as it takes an adversarial approach to these kinds of initiatives. There is secrecy wherein it does not share some of its plans to modernize government and save costs to get better value for taxpayers. I do not think there is anybody in this House who would disagree with the idea that there are ways to get better value for taxpayers.

Our quarrel with the government is with its lack of respect for the public service and its inability, incapacity, or refusal to actually work with the public service to get those better results.

We are accustomed to this kind of approach as a Parliament. The government treats Parliament as a rubber stamp. It does not provide Parliament with the facts and the costs required for Parliament to do its work.

If we look at the way the government approaches Parliament and the way it approaches the public service, it brings back memories of the Mike Harris government.

The finance minister, the foreign affairs minister, and the President of the Treasury Board were all members of the Mike Harris government and they picked fights--

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Did you ever campaign for Mike Harris?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

No, in fact, Mr. Speaker. I have never campaigned for Mike Harris.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Neither have I.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Neither has my leader. I can say that unequivocally.

During that time, they picked gratuitous fights with unions. They caused countless strikes and disruptions to government services. They left the public without services, as schools shut down and government offices closed. They really made labour relations toxic throughout the public service.

There is a need, obviously, from time to time, for a government to disagree with the unions leading the public service. However, there is an opportunity at all times to work with the public service and get better results.

Again, in this budget and Bill C-3 and part seven of it, we see a refusal of the government to share with this Parliament and the public service its plans to reduce expenditures. Either the government does not have a plan or it is hiding the plan from Canadians. We know that when it comes to Consulting and Audit Canada, the government hid its plan during the election to eliminate much of the audit capacity of the federal government. Again, this is consistent with a government of secrecy that does not want Canadians to have the facts, that does not want scrutiny by legitimate audit functions within government. This is not a cost-cutting measure but an ideological measure designed to try to shut down anyone who asks legitimate questions of the government and to try to continue to hide the truth from Canadians.

I would like to speak to the residential mortgages issue.

The parliamentary secretary, a few minutes ago, commended the Minister of Finance for his prescience in eliminating 40-year mortgages with no down payments. She neglected to tell the House that it was that minister who, just a few years before that, had introduced in his first budget 40-year mortgages with no down payments.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Oops.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Oops.

The reality, Mr. Speaker, is that it was tremendously irresponsible for the Minister of Finance to introduce 40-year mortgages with no down payments in his first budget in 2006.

The Liberal opposition raised repeatedly, day after day in this House, the housing bubble, a bubble that was mentioned earlier by Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, in reports, including an extensive report in The Economist magazine a few months ago that cited the housing bubble in Canada. When we raised questions to that effect, the Minister of Finance, the government, continually rejected our assertion that this was a problem that needed corrective action.

The reality is that it is not just a housing bubble but a personal debt bubble that we have in Canada. The average Canadian family owes $1.50 for every dollar of annual income.

Again, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mark Carney, has described housing as “severely unaffordable” and that we must remain vigilant against an upcoming correction.

Under the previous Liberal government, mortgage rules were prudent. There were 25-year mortgages with 5% down payment required. That was changed under the current government to 40-year mortgages with no downpayment. Then it reduced them to 35 years with a 5% downpayment, and then 30-year mortgages. We hope that the Minister of Finance will soon get back to the prudent Liberal policy of 25-year mortgage amortizations.

The government is now asking us to take on more risk, effectively. The CMHC limit was $350 billion in 2008 and that has been raised to $600 billion. Ultimately, we recognize that there could be a strong argument made for raising the limit. However, this is a very significant public policy matter. It deserves more debate than what is being afforded in this budget discussion. We should have an informed vote on it and, frankly, part seven should be introduced as a separate bill and be studied very carefully.

These are important issues, if we consider the level of debt Canadians have and the importance of real estate as the principal asset that many Canadian families rely on for their income and financial security in their retirement. I think there is a strong argument to be made that part seven should be a separate piece of legislation and be afforded more diligence in this Parliament.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the member that he does not need to tell us again that he was a minister of public works. I think he mentioned it six or seven times. We all know that when the Liberal Party actually had more than 30 members in the House and was in government some time ago, he was a minister. I wanted to let him know that.

In relation to part 7 and part 11, shared services in particular, he mentioned that we were keeping these secret. I just want to let the member know that if he read the budget implementation act, they are mentioned there. The secret has been published. It is no longer a secret.

What is not a secret is that most Canadians would be shocked to find out that up to this point, many government departments could not share services between each other. They did not have the ability to do so.

This government, in looking at ways not to cut jobs but actually to save money for taxpayers, is looking at ways like that of sharing services.

In mentioning the prudent Liberal policy, is this particular member talking about the policy where they cut $25 billion from the most needy people in Canada, including from hospitals, schools and the elderly? Is that the policy he is talking about as so prudent?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member has a business background, which is commendable. He refers to that sometimes. I was referring to my background and experience as a minister of public works who actually helped lead the shared services initiative within the Government of Canada.

I dare say, although I recognize it is quite a long ways from where my priority is right now to being back in government, I think there is a strong argument to be made, and some would say, I have a better chance of being in a cabinet than the hon. member.

I would say, from having led shared services initiatives, it should not be just—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. It is very difficult for hon. members to hear the questions and comments when there is so much noise.

Questions and comments.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify for the record that at the committee, when members vote to bring a committee report to the House, they do not necessarily vote in favour of or in opposition to the budget. They are simply voting to report it, which is what was done yesterday.

The opposition was very clear at the meeting regarding our concern about the changes being proposed to the insurance aspect of CMHC and the bringing in of American companies.

My question for the member for Kings—Hants is about the CMHC delivering $12 billion in tax revenue directly to the coffers of Canada, money that it has obtained from its operations. Why in the world would the government want to give that to American companies to send back to the U.S.?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a philosophical problem with using private sector resources and initiatives, and capital in some cases, to provide public services with good sound regulation.

We have to look at every one of these cases separately. There are cases of outsourcing that can make sense and deliver good services for Canadians in conjunction with the public service, and there are some that do not make sense.

The unfortunate thing is that by lumping this provision into this budget and not providing us with adequate opportunities to study it, we cannot determine whether it makes sense in this case. I think we would agree that it requires greater study and, as such, a separate piece of legislation. Given the importance of this, I think it would make a lot of sense.