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.

Second Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the member was not elected in this place at the time Bill C-60, the omnibus budget bill of spring 2013, first brought in changes to disadvantage credit unions by increasing their tax rates and removing the tax credit they used to have. However, I was pleased to hear him speak in favour of the importance of credit unions, particularly to rural Canadians.

I have been disappointed that the changes made under Harper have not been rolled back by the current government. Would the member favour restoring to the credit unions the status they had before the spring omnibus budget bill of 2013, which was then known as Bill C-60?

Motions in Amendment

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I always take great pleasure in being able to rise and speak in Canada's Parliament, in our House of Commons.

It is an incredible privilege and honour, certainly to do so on behalf of the people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, in the northwest of British Columbia. This is a region of the country that is incredibly proud, with its diverse and important history. Also, it has struggled, particularly with regard to creating jobs, and it has watched many of the major sectors suffer.

One of the great abuses that has been heaped on that challenge by successive governments is the inattentiveness to what actual Canadians are concerned about, the proper way to create jobs and wealth in this country.

We have struggled, particularly when we watch governments that grow so arrogant over time that they choose a form of governing that is disrespectful and disregarding of some of our most primary and fundamental democratic instincts.

I have some quotations, because it is not just me saying this about the process we are engaged in here today on this particular bill. Let me quote from somebody sitting in cabinet right now.

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. This is a very important public policy question that is very complex and we have the arrogance of the government in invoking closure again. When we look at the Liberal Party on arrogance it is like looking at the Grand Canyon. It is this big fact of nature that we cannot help but stare at.

That is what the Minister of Industry said when the previous Liberal government used an omnibus bill, this technique of ramming all sorts of pieces of legislation into one. That omnibus bill was one-third the size of the one the Conservatives have just introduced. This must be three times the size of the Grand Canyon with respect to arrogance.

This happens to governments, especially ones that age badly over time, as the government has done. We can look at the list of omnibus legislation over the last number of years. Bill C-13 was 644 pages; Bill C-38, which was often called the pipelines enabling act, gutting environmental and safeguards we have within the Fisheries Act, was 425 pages; Bill C-45, further gutting protections for Canadians, was 400 pages. There was Bill C-4, Bill C-60, and now this one, Bill C-31, at almost 300 pages affecting 60 pieces of law.

I have a stack of quotes from Conservatives, from the Prime Minister to many ministers in his cabinet, decrying the abuse of Parliament that had been done under Liberal majority governments. It seems that they paid too close attention, but took all of the wrong lessons from the previous government. In fact, they took that and somehow tried to normalize it.

We do not think it is normal. We do not think it is proper and good for a government to try to ram these pieces of legislation through, invoking what is called time allocation or closure, shutting down the debate at every stage. In this case, the government shut it down after 20 minutes of debate. It brought in time allocation and said, “That is enough of this whole debate thing, this whole democracy thing. Let us allocate the time and shut down opportunities”.

I remember the Prime Minister, when he was in opposition, decrying the fact that he might only get 10 minutes and that many members of Parliament would not get any time at all. That is exactly what the same Prime Minister is now doing.

That is on the process. It is an absolute farce when the government pretends that any sort of proper oversight was given to this bill. I have sat on the committee, and my Conservative colleagues know full well that as the shutting down of witnesses and debate at committee happens, the government starts racing through pages and pages of legislation. In fact, it had to amend its own bill before it even left the committee stage, because it had made so many fundamental errors. It was going to deprive seniors of some of their pensions, inadvertently.

Constitutional experts that the Conservatives say are the best, like Mr. Hogg, who the Conservatives rely on for advice, have come forward and said there are whole sections of this bill that will not only be challenged in our courts for charter infringement, but those challenges will succeed.

The government is going to introduce legislation that it knows full well is likely to fail a charter challenge, which is going to cost Canadians millions through our tax dollars for all the lawyers that it takes to go through all the series of courts up to the Supreme Court, but it will also cause all the pain and aggravation for those who suffer under a law that is not constitutional in the first place.

This is a movie we have seen before from the government. Time and time again, when we get references for bills that are unconstitutional from all the advice we can gather, the government chooses playing politics over good policy and brings them in anyway.

Let us look at aspects of this 360-page monster.

Let me start with something that is not in here, which the small businesses in Canada were calling for. It was a proposal first put forward by New Democrats in the last election: a small-business hiring tax credit.

Here is the fundamental idea in this very good idea. This was a small-business initiative that Jack Layton and the NDP proposed that said, “Let us help out small businesses in hiring those people, but in giving that tax credit we want to connect it to an actual job being created”. I know this is radical economics over here, where we suggest that if we give a tax credit to the private sector from the public, there should be something in return, like a job created.

The tax credits and the tax breaks that the Conservatives prefer and, to be fair, so did the Liberals before them, in the order of tens of billions of dollars, had no strings attached. I remember Mr. Flaherty, our dear friend, criticizing the private sector for sitting on half a trillion dollars of what is called “dead money”. This is money that had been accumulating in the private sector in the private enterprises in Canada that they were not reinvesting. It was just a hope from the Conservatives: here are the tax breaks to the banks and the oil sector; here is a hope that they will actually do something with the money rather than sit on it or just do stock dividends. They hope that they are going to reinvest it back into research and development, reinvest it back into hiring more Canadians and expanding their business, but there are no strings attached to that deal. The Conservatives were very happy to let that go.

Also, many of those tax breaks were done when the government was running a deficit, so it was borrowed money. As all Canadians know, because they have borrowed money at some point, borrowed money always costs more. It was borrowed money that was then sent to the private sector in Canada with no strings attached.

This was one good idea that over half a million Canadian small business owners applied for and used, this small-business hiring tax credit. We would think that, somewhere in the 360 pages, the Conservatives would have found a way to include that one measure in this budget implementation act. It is one measure that worked, that was being applied for, that Canadian business owners enjoyed, and that had helped create more than half a million jobs in small and medium-sized businesses. However, it is not here.

What is in the bill is interesting. There is the Hazardous Products Act. There are all sorts of changes to how we would handle hazardous products. There are changes to the Supreme Court. There are changes to our privacy rights in this bill.

National Capital Act

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-565, An Act to amend the National Capital Act (Gatineau Park) and to make a related amendment to the Department of Canadian Heritage Act.

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce a new version of my bill concerning Gatineau Park, which I originally introduced in November 2012. I wish to thank the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé for seconding this new version.

The version I am presenting here today includes the changes to the National Capital Act that resulted from the passing of the government's Bill C-60 a little earlier this year.

Apart from that, this bill is identical to the one I introduced in 2012. It gives Gatineau Park special status in the National Capital Act by establishing the park's boundaries in the act, giving those boundaries parliamentary protection and prohibiting the sale of public lands located within the park.

Once again, I invite all of my colleagues from all parties in this House to support my bill at second reading.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Report Stage

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to rise. I would have asked a question, except I have some issues I can pose to the entire Conservative caucus as opposed to any one individual member.

I want to start off by addressing the comments of the previous speaker about reaching a balanced budget by 2015. That is going to be much easier for the Conservatives because last year, as we understand it, there were $10 billion allocated in the budget they did not spend. There were people who were expecting monies, heritage and other places that was not spent. In other words, the Conservatives broke promises to people, which does not come as a great surprise. Therefore, hallelujah, they are going to announce that we have this money to put toward the deficit, so it is more important to meet this one target than it is to follow through on their commitments to Canadians and Canadian organizations.

I sat on the finance committee for a period of time through the last omnibus bills and all of the what I would call nothing short of craziness happened at committee as a result of the fact that so many things had been piled on top of the other that actually belonged, in our opinion, in other committees. With Bill C-4, the Conservatives are doing it again.

Of the last bills that came before that committee, Bill C-38, was the biggest one with which I was involved. It changed the Navigable Waters Act, the Environmental Assessment Act and all kinds of things that a person outside this place would ask what it had to do with the budget. The fact was it did not. It was just a tactic on the part of the government to jam things together to get it through as fast as it could, to keep it from being at committees where it could receive the proper scrutiny by members and the witnesses who could bring the expertise before the committee to fortify the situation.

Before the prorogation, we were dealing with Bill C-54 about the not criminally responsible. Some of the witnesses who came from the health community said that nobody in the psychiatric community was asked about that bill. All of this is symptomatic of what is happening with the government in the sense of not wanting to hear from anyone, MPs or anyone else.

My view and the view of the New Democratic Party is that committees are there to make bills better. We are there to help the government. The government brings forward a bill and we have a critique of it and recommendations, which are called amendments, never see the light of day because they are voted down at committee or motions are passed at committee to limit the time we have. If we do not meet that time allocation, anything that has not been voted on is deemed to have failed. Therefore, we could have a list of 25 good quality amendments and Conservatives will not even listen to them.

That anti-democratic aspect limits the ability of the sincere efforts of the House to try to improve legislation in a way that is just baffling. How in the world can Conservatives justify shutting out information, even if it is not from us? Information from the public or from experts in any given field relative to the budget or relative to those things that have been piled into the budget, how can they shut that down without giving it any consideration?

It makes us wonder what is behind the agenda. This is not new. As I said, it happened with Bills C-38, C-45, C-60. Other speakers today talked about the fact that all of those bills had some blatant mistakes that successive bills had to correct.

I am troubled again by the fact the Canadian Federation of Municipalities warned the current government and the previous government about a deficit in infrastructure to the tune of somewhere between $175 billion and $200 billion that needed to be taken care of now. Look at the situation with the bridge in Montreal, and we understand how desperate it can get really quickly.

It looks like some interim work has been done to repair the bridge and get the traffic flowing, but stepping back from that, we have almost $200 billion elsewhere in our country that deserves support. I believe the Minister of Finance has said that there is $800 billion of dead capital that businesses are holding onto for a couple of reasons. There is some sensibility to what they are doing because in 2008 they had trouble getting money from the banks. We had the lowest interest rates practically in the history of our country, so why was the government not taking 10-year bonds and partnering with the business community to start addressing some of the infrastructure needs?

In my community of Hamilton, we are near desperate on sewage. I hear of figures somewhere close to $200 billion of a deficit on Hamilton sewage. Basements of houses on certain streets in Hamilton flood every time there is a serious rainfall. They cannot even get insurance anymore. It is very clear for us.

The previous speaker made reference to temporary foreign workers. The figures I have may not be precise but they are certainly close. Two or three years ago we had roughly 240,000 new immigrants to Canada. They have support here. They have a sponsor who is responsible for all of their costs for 10 years, so there is no liability to us for them. However, in that period there were 241,000 temporary workers.

The temporary worker program was initially put in as support for the farmers. There was lots of work Canadians did not want to do and farmers needed help, and that program was originally set up to bring them in. Then all of a sudden, certain aspects of the business community woke up to the fact that they could pay temporary foreign workers less money and they would not have obligations to them. By the way, because they are here on a temporary permit, if they do not do exactly what they want, they get to go home really quickly. People from other countries come here. They are very dependent on money to help their families back home. It is a very insecure situation and they are being abused by the government and employers in Canada. That is shameful. There is no other word for it.

From my perspective, to hear the Conservatives talk about some modest change, I would love to have seen that at the immigration committee, to talk about temporary foreign workers and to look at that program in-depth, to step back from it and make some suggestions to help with that, but that opportunity was not afforded to us.

Going a little further on this, Bill C-4, as previous omnibus bills, piled together amendments to over 70 laws. One of them is the Public Service labour relations employment board act. That is a new addition. Another one is the Mackenzie gas project impacts fund act.

Why do we need a new act for labour relations when we have had labour relations in the country between the public service workers and the government for many decades? Why do the Conservatives suddenly need to change that? If we do need to change it, why is it not done through the appropriate department and the appropriate committee rather than a budget bill? It sounds like somebody is up to something. If I were a worker, with the number of cuts there has been to the public service workers already, I would be a little nervous just about the title of that bill.

Contained in Bill C-4 are very vicious anti-worker and anti-veteran measures. I never thought I would stand in the House of Commons in our country and say our government has anti-veteran policies.

The Conservatives have made changes to health and safety protection for workers. My time is running out and I have not even started my speech, but this is part of the give and take in this place. The last speaker spoke about some things that drew my attention to it, but if I have to close, I am certainly proud to close on defending veterans.

There is a Veterans Review and Appeal Board. We have seen day in and day out in the media of late where the ombudsman has spoken out in defence of veterans saying that they are not getting the health care or the protection they deserve and there are numerous budget cuts to that department. That is shameful. One thing Parliament must stand for is the veterans of our country.

This is an anti-worker, anti-veteran bill and it is absolutely shameful.

Bill C-4—Time Allocation Motion

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, here we are again.

The government is using this procedure for the 58th time. That is unbelievable. This is the 58th time since the last election alone. The government is shattering all the records and the worst records at that. This government is obsessed with shutting down all debate.

Something to notice about this particular one, which I think makes the point as to why the Conservatives are so offline and so contrary to parliamentary rules and procedure, is that the bill they are rushing through under time allocation this time, which they had to rush through in the last stage of debate to get it to committee, was not looked at by the committee for three weeks.

The government hit the panic button in the House of Commons and shut down debate because it is such an urgent bill. We had to get to it right away. It was so vital to the economy, but of course, the finance committee did not look at it for the next 21 days.

A second piece of this time allocation, which is fascinating, is that the Conservatives make so many mistakes when they do this, when they shut down debate in Parliament. Bill C-4, which they are shutting down today, is there to make corrections to a previous bill that they rushed through Parliament, Bill C-60, which was making corrections to a previous bill that they rushed through Parliament, Bill C-48.

This is what the government does time and again. It keeps making these mistakes because it is in such a panic, yet it calls it good government and good order. It is not. It is bad legislation. It is bad process.

When is the government going to learn? This is no way to run a country.

Report Stage

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could speak to the fact that we now have what appears to be a new practice that did not exist under previous administrations, being two omnibus budget bills a year.

That is what happened in 2012, with Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, and that is what is happening this year with Bill C-60 and Bill C-4. It means that every single budget is followed by a omnibus bill, which in the last two years has comprised 800 to 900 pages each time, of multiple separate acts. The Canadian Bar Association made the point on Bill C-4 that this reduces the ability to have proper hearings and scrutiny on each of the component parts of the legislation, and it violates parliamentary practice.

I wonder if my colleague from Winnipeg North would agree.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2

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

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the member's speech. It is as though we are living in a parallel universe. The people I have talked to are worried about the fact that funds for social housing are disappearing, that child and family poverty in parts of our country have not gone down, that people are working two and three jobs just to feed their children and that student loan debt is increasing. Municipalities have been calling on the government to invest in infrastructure, whether it is sewer, water or roads.

With respect to the environment, over the last couple of weeks we saw Canada being castigated on the world stage for its grim record on greenhouse gas emission reductions, plus any of the other initiatives we might be taking around prevention and mitigation. Our former leader, the late Jack Layton, used to say that we needed to talk about the fact that it was fine to fix the roof, but it did not do us any good if the foundation was crumbling. I would argue that the foundation in Canada is crumbling under the government's watch.

With regard to Bill C-4, the NDP is opposing it both on process and content. This is just like the three previous omnibus budget bills, C-38, C-45 and C-60.

Bill C-4 would amend 70 pieces of legislation. It contains two entirely new acts, the Mackenzie gas project impacts fund act and the public service labour relations and employment board. In talking about this, I want to refer to the process for one moment. It is our responsibility as parliamentarians to thoroughly review legislation that comes before us, to call witnesses and propose amendments. We are not able to do that in this current democratic deficit climate.

I want to quote a couple of people who have commented on the government process with regard to omnibus bills.

In iPolitics, former finance officials Scott Clark and Peter DeVries stated:

Budget vagueness is a troubling trend. Vagueness and obtuseness have featured in successive budgets, with details provided in the omnibus budget bills. The real budget has now become the budget omnibus bill. This undermines the credibility and transparency of the budget and requires much more diligence in assessing budget proposals.

Andrew Coyne stated:

Not only does this make a mockery of the confidence convention—shielding bills that would otherwise be defeatable within a money bill, which is not—it makes it impossible to know what Parliament really intended by any of it. We've no idea whether MPs supported or opposed any particular bill in the bunch, only that they voted for the legislation that contained them. There is no common thread that runs between them, no overarching principle; they represent not a single act of policy, but a sort of compulsory buffet....But there is something quite alarming about Parliament being obliged to rubber-stamp the government's whole legislative agenda at one go.

I could not agree more with Mr. Coyne.

The challenge here is that time after time we have heard the government get up and say that the NDP has voted against X. What it does not say is that it was an omnibus budget bill that would change several different pieces of acts and regulations. Perhaps there were pieces of the legislation that we agreed with but also pieces we could not agree with. Therefore, we do a balancing act. We take a look at the overall public good, then we determine whether we will vote for or against. Unfortunately, with the way the government acts, we largely end up voting against its omnibus budget bills because we do not see them as being in the public good overall.

I want to highlight some of the changes proposed by this legislation. As I mentioned, it will amend or repeal 70 pieces of legislation in over 300 pages. It strips health and safety officers of their powers and puts nearly all of these powers into the hands of the minister. It significantly weakens the ability of employees to refuse work in unsafe conditions. It moves to eliminate binding arbitration as a method to resolve disputes in the public service. It guts Canada's most venerable scientific research institution, the National Research Council. It reduces the number of permanent members on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board and repeals the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board. It pushes ahead with the Conservatives' ill-advised $350 million tax hike on labour-sponsored ventured capital funds and allows for three directors of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board to be non-Canadian residents.

Many of the changes that proposed deserved separate legislation so we could have had that kind of thorough review. Instead, we have a bill that was rammed through and presented to three different committees in very limited time frames. Any amendments that were proposed by the official opposition or the opposition parties were rejected out of hand.

That is not good governance. That is what the Conservatives claim they stand for in this country: good governance, accountability, and transparency. None of those three are true.

I just want to touch on the Parliamentary Budget Officer for just one moment, another officer of Parliament who has been under attack by the government. He has been forced to go to court to try to get documents to demonstrate what kinds of savings are being proposed by the government.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that the overall impact of budget 2012, fiscal update 2012, and budget 2013 would be a loss of 67,000 jobs by 2017 and a 0.57% reduction in GDP. This is a significant decline in economic growth.

That leads me to the smoke and mirrors games played by the Conservatives. An article from November 13, on Global News, indicated that the government had“sat on more than $10 billion in funds Parliament approved and Canadians were told they could expect in 2012-13 through a slew of programs in dozens of departments”.

The federal government held on to more than $10 billion it was expected to spend in 2012-13, with almost half coming from two departments, according to recently published financial documents. These were funds Parliament approved and Canadians were told they could expect...including the Senate Ethics Officer, disability and death compensation at Veterans Affairs, and weather and environmental services for Canadians at Environment Canada.

I want to touch on one particular part of this fund, and that is Transport Canada. I do not know where most members live and whether the municipalities where they live are suffering the kinds of infrastructure deficits many of our communities are suffering from. Many of our communities have aging infrastructure, and this is a deficit that is being passed on to future generations, because we have refused consistently over decades to provide the federal contribution to updating and upgrading the infrastructure.

Interestingly, Transport Canada, with Infrastructure Canada, had the most trouble spending its budget.

In 2012-13, that department was responsible for almost $1.6 billion of Transport's overall $2.5 billion lapse, according to the Public Accounts....

Within Infrastructure Canada, a large chunk of the lapse in 2012-13 came from the Building Canada Fund, an $8.8 billion project announced in 2007. The project was set up to support national, regional, and municipal projects related to public transit, green energy and drinking water, among other priorities.

Last year, the two components of the funds—the “major infrastructure” and “community” components—were together slated to spend more than $2.2 billion. Only $1.1 billion made it out the door.

That is shameful. If that is the way the government is going to move toward balancing the budget, it is balancing the budget on the backs of our communities.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer suggested, in a review of the supplementary estimates, that the government has been unable to spend approximately $10 billion of the budgetary authorities provided by Parliament over each of the past three years. As such,

Parliamentarians may wish to seek clarification regarding why this level of unspent money remains so high, what measures will be undertaken by departments and agencies to ensure that spending directed by Parliament occurs, and whether all of the $5.4 billion sought in these supplementary estimates is actually required.

That is just one example. I just want to close by saying that child poverty is not even being tackled in this budget. I want to point to the grim record in British Columbia, where child and family poverty has simply not been tackled. There is absolutely a federal government role in this, and I would actually encourage members in this House to support my Bill C-233, which proposes a poverty reduction plan. The federal government can take some leadership.

I have just a couple of numbers here. B.C. had a child poverty rate of 18.6%, the worst rate of any province in Canada using the before-tax, low-income cutoffs of Statistics Canada as the measure of poverty.

By any measure, I think each and every one of us in this House would agree that children should come first and that it is time for the government to actually demonstrate leadership by putting in place programs and services that support our families and our communities.

Motions in Amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for seconding all of these changes.

Let us let Canadians know what all these amendments are in aid of. We are now debating Bill C-4, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget, except that we are dealing with another attempt by the Conservatives to pull the wool over the eyes of Canadians. We want to slow the process down so that Canadians are not blindsided again with this omnibus legislation.

This is the fourth omnibus budget bill the government has brought in. Bill C-4 amends over 70 different pieces of legislation in over 300 pages. It follows on the heels of previous omnibus budget Bills C-38, C-45, and C-60. The bill contains entirely new laws: the Mackenzie gas project impacts fund act and the public service labour relations and employment board act. There are brand new acts within the bill.

Like its predecessor omnibus budget bills, this bill contains a wide variety of measures, many of which are not even in the budget and do not have any relationship to the budget. They are changes such as gutting health and safety protections for federal jurisdiction workers; cuts to reductions at the Veterans Review and Appeal Board; repealing the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board; and changes to how we select Supreme Court judges.

These are not budget items, yet they are crammed into an omnibus bill, within a very short timeframe, to evade the scrutiny of Parliament. Canadians will not really have a full appreciation of the changes being made. It negates the opportunity of parliamentarians to hear a full range of witnesses, to engage in thorough examination, discussion, and debate about a bill, and to then propose reasoned amendments for improvements that would help make these laws better.

As we have seen in the past, because of the short timeframe, bills have been rushed through Parliament and passed, and then the government has had to go back and correct them after the fact because of mistakes it had made.

With this bill, as with all the other omnibus bills, Conservatives accepted not one amendment. They would not change even one comma. No one else has any good ideas. They would change nothing. In our discussions at committee, there were several amendments proposed. The NDP proposed 24. Other opposition parties proposed amendments. Not one change was accepted, as in the previous omnibus budget bills.

There was a time limit imposed on our study at committee. We had only two days of witnesses, including an hour with the minister, and there was a deadline of midnight. Everything we had not voted on in the bill was deemed passed, and if it was an amendment, it was deemed rejected. That certainly did not allow us much latitude for making changes or even for trying to slow down the parliamentary process and review.

Canadians are offended by this. We have heard from many Canadians who are getting the message about the lack of democracy in these omnibus budget bills. However, we also heard expert testimony.

The Canadian Bar Association testified at our committee during the two days of study. It said that “eschewing consultation and employing omnibus bills diminish the quality of our laws and the democratic process. We urge you to reconsider these practices”.

We completely agree.

We heard a variety of witnesses oppose the process of omnibus budget bills. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation agreed with us that this is a bad way to bring in legislation.

What it does is attach unpopular measures to popular measures and does not allow the separation of issues so that there can be good and thorough debate. It prevents separate votes on issues by lumping them all together. Obviously, it is less transparent and fundamentally less democratic. We believe that this evasion of parliamentary scrutiny is not worthy of the House.

Let me deal with the notion that this bill is in any way aiding the priorities of Canadians in terms of creating jobs and a stronger economy. In this bill, the Conservatives have failed to put forward significant job creation measures at a time when we are seeing stagnating incomes, stagnating wages, insecurity in the workplace, job insecurity, and all-time high household debt. This is at a time when we have a current account trade deficit of over $60 billion, which is a record for our country.

We believe that what the Conservative government ought to do is deal with the real challenges the economy is facing. Let me quote a couple of sources. The Conservatives may feel that they know better, but let us hear what the International Monetary Fund had to say:

...the IMF no longer views Canada as the growth engine of the G7 economies. While bettering the European members, Canadian growth is projected to play second fiddle to the U.S. in 2012, 2013 and 2014. Growth in “other advanced countries” not in the G7 club, such as the Scandinavian nations and Australia and New Zealand, are also projected to outperform Canada. Going forward, it predicts the Canadian economy will continue to be held back by high household debt levels and a cooling housing market.

That is the International Monetary Fund.

Business columnist David Olive wrote:

We know from the recent American and British experience with austerity chic that you cannot cut your way to prosperity. Indeed, sucking demand, or cash, out of an economy with cutbacks to government spending—including essential services and infrastructure upgrading—merely adds to the jobless lines and cuts household incomes. That, in turn, drives up social-spending costs related to mounting unemployment.

Clearly, the Conservative government is failing on the economy.

Let us hear from Paul Wells, from Maclean's, in his recent article, “Stephen Harper and the knowledge economy: perfect strangers”. He wrote:

...by the broadest measure of expenditure on research and development, Canada has fallen from 16th out of 41 comparable countries [since] the year Stephen Harper became prime minister...

The Conservative government is failing on so many counts to do the job on the economy, yet it has an omnibus budget bill that would cram in over 60 amendments to the Canada Labour Code. Anyone working anywhere in the federal jurisdiction, not just for the federal government but perhaps in the transportation sector, banking, telecommunications, interprovincial trucking, rail, ships, trains, or airlines, would be affected by this.

It would strip the powers of health and safety inspectors. They could inspect a workplace with a phone call. However, it would not be a qualified inspector; it would just be someone the minister appointed, who would not even have to be qualified.

There are so many regressive changes in this bill that attack the basic rights of people in the workplace. It is a colossal step backward. All Canadian workers should be very concerned about this legislation. It is a colossal step backward for Canadians.

New Democrats will not support the Conservatives' attempt to evade scrutiny by Parliament and Canadians. We oppose this budget and its implementation bills, unless it is revised to reflect the real priorities of Canadian families: creating quality, well-paid jobs; ensuring retirement security; fostering opportunities for young people; and making life for families more affordable.

I see that my time is up. I thank the House for the opportunity, and I welcome questions from my parliamentary colleagues.

Third reading

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, never have such strong-arm tactics been used to amend national museum legislation. I want to congratulate the members opposite.

The way this government expects Parliament to do its bidding would make anyone's blood boil. Not only are the Conservatives asking us to stand quietly by while they shove a museum down our throats, but they are also asking us to trust them. That takes the cake.

They are getting ready to shut down the existing Canadian Museum of Civilization and, at the same time, they are asking us to believe that the museum will be just as popular, just as accessible and just as non-partisan as it has been for the past 20 years. More than anythin, though, the Conservatives are asking us to trust their word when they swear that the government will not interfere with the new museum. We know that the government is passionate about certain historic topics, at least when presented in nice little 30-second television clips.

They are asking Canadians to close their eyes, fall backwards, and hope that someone will be there to catch them. There are far more reasons not to believe them than there are to trust them.

We know what the Conservatives' commitments to the independence of crown corporations really mean. We are well aware of examples of their interference elsewhere in government. I am especially thinking of Bill C-60, which is the most obvious example of their taste for excessively proactive management of arm's-length agencies. We know that the government is always elbow-deep into the operations of any organization that needs to operate autonomously and at arm's length.

The Conservatives also ask us to trust them when they tell us they have consulted experts. However, the national associations of archaeologists, anthropologists and historians have publicly expressed their outrage at not being consulted. The Conservatives are asking us to trust them, just as we would like to trust the government to protect our national institutions, such as Library and Archives Canada and Parks Canada, institutions that the Conservatives have deliberately gutted in recent years. They were stripped of their experts and their researchers, individuals who work hard to protect our history. I do not need to remind you that Parks Canada and its historic sites recently lost 80% of their archaeologists thanks to the Conservatives. This kind of behaviour is astounding. Then, they ask us to trust them

Tonight, they will ask us to trust them to create an independent museum, free to choose its content and direction, yet we are being told exactly what that content will be, and how it will be new and improved—not to mention that there are still significant concerns about ongoing interference at the Canadian Museum of Civilization. After all this time, what we hear everywhere is that no one trusts them. That is the issue.

It is clear that the museum or its experts did not come up with this idea and proceed to present it to academics, stakeholders, and then the public. In committee, the minister at the time clearly told us that this all started in his own office. It was his idea. This is what he said in committee. He started thinking about this in May 2011. Then, the minister made an announcement on the spot, at the museum, while the museum employees and experts themselves were kept away by security guards.

It was only after this announcement that they thought of introducing the bill. Now, that is strange. Then they decided to inform the opposition parties, and it was only after all this that they thought of consulting the public. Finally, someone decided to talk to historians, archaeologists, museum curators and experts. Everything was done backwards.

The members opposite said that we had a lot of nerve to oppose the bill before it was introduced in the House. They told us that we were not respecting parliamentary matters. That is pretty pathetic, coming from them. The reality is that when they introduced this bill, their minds were made up. The Canadian Postal Museum was already closed and dismantled, without warning and in secrecy. They had already made plans to dismantle the Grand Hall that depicts Canada's history.

The parliamentary stage of their plan to gut the Canadian Museum of Civilization was simply a nuisance for them, a speed bump on the fast track to a museum created by the Conservatives for their own enjoyment. By rejecting all of our amendments in committee, they have confirmed that impression.

Now let us talk about the consultations. We are not the only ones saying that the government does not want to hear anyone's opinion on this project. In committee, the president of the Canadian Anthropology Society, Lorne Holyoak, said that he felt the museum and the government did not make an effort to adequately consult the professional community of historians, anthropologists and archaeologists.

The head of the Canadian Anthropology Society said this about the museum consultation:

The meetings on the new museum that have been convened to date do not meet the definition of true consultation, a formal discussion between groups of people before a decision is made. The public meetings held last fall were brainstorming or awareness sessions, but not actual consultations.

National associations of historians and archaeologists have said the same thing. They were not consulted either.

The museum's CEO was asked to talk about that in committee, and my colleague from Hochelaga, who is an archaeologist herself, asked whether Canadians and museum experts were consulted about the changes to the mandate. The CEO responded that they did not ask Canadians if they thought the mandate should be changed.

This is from the Canadian heritage committee hearings:

Mr. Chair, we did not ask Canadians if they thought that the mandate should be changed.

That is the president of the museum speaking.

Once again, there is a profound credibility gap between what the government has been promising us and what has actually happened at the museum. It is very difficult for us to put our support, and as we all know, it is impossible for Canadians to put their trust in a process that has not been straightforward. This process has not been an open one, as it could have been. This is a question of credibility for the government and it is a question of trust for us.

It was clear to everyone that the government's mind was made up before the consultations were held. Even the mayor of Gatineau was not consulted. He was invited to the minister's announcement, where he learned about this plan at the same time as everyone else. He seemed rather surprised, I must say. Then, he was asked his opinion on a bill that had already been introduced.

The effect of this complete lack of consultation has been particularly clear for first nations and for the Japanese-Canadian community.

Last June, a group of first nations people decided to visit the Museum of Civilization to see an important artifact that is on display in the existing Canadian history hall on the fifth floor. I actually encourage my colleagues to see this massive, very impressive exhibit. The people came to see the Nishga Girl, a fishing vessel built by Japanese-Canadian boatbuilders unjustly confiscated by the Canadian government during the Second World War and then donated to the Museum of Civilization by one of the hereditary chiefs of the Nisga'a First Nation.

First nations visitors arrived at the museum in June to see the boat that they had donated, and they discovered it was gone. It had been sent off to storage, and the museum was about to get rid of it. That mistake caused a huge amount of anger for first nations and for the Japanese-Canadian community. We brought this up in the House, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister was very delicate, as always, and he called it “storage”.

The Museum of Civilization officials have since apologized personally in Winnipeg to leaders of both communities and have promised to return the boat to the museum's exhibition.

This is what happens when consultation does not take place; this is what happens when politicians try to draw their own museum exhibits; this is what happens when the people at the top think that consultation is not important.

The Conservatives do not appear to be trying to change the Canadian Museum of Civilization because the current museum is lacking in history, or because the first nations are not adequately represented, or because of any of the other oversights that the Conservatives have already brought up in the House and continue to talk about in the media. Instead, it appears to be because the Conservatives are not satisfied with the version of history that is presented: an archeological, cultural, and community-based history; a history of survival, commerce and trade; a history of the builders of this continent; a history that they do not think fits in with their identity or policies.

This all boils down to an issue of credibility and trust. We cannot trust this government, which has wasted every opportunity, which has exaggerated history and has distorted it for its own political purposes. It bypassed the experts who could have taught this government a lot about Canadian history and about how to appreciate and promote it.

We cannot trust a government that spent $70 million on television ads about the war of 1812 during the Super Bowl and that continues to cut staff and archeologists from archeological and historical sites.

The member for St. Catharines dared to say last week that we oppose history. In response, I say, on the contrary, we are defending history, while the Conservatives are harming it by suffocating researchers. For all of these reasons, we cannot support Bill C-7.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in order for politicians to get through their very long days and heavy schedules, they have to take some pleasure in what they are doing. I must admit, however, that I did not enjoy reading Bill C-4 at all.

I therefore took a few minutes before writing these words to escape into my own mind a bit, and my thoughts turned to movies. I really had the feeling as I read through Bill C-4 that I was being shown an old movie—I am trying to refrain from saying a really bad one—in which I had played a role. I began to imagine the titles I could give to it.

If it were a French film, we could call it Rebelote. If it were an American film, we could call it The Empire Strikes Back. I must admit I spent a few moments imagining certain members of the party across the way wearing the emperor's costume or dressed as Darth Vader. I will not name them, but I will leave it up to my colleagues to picture them, given that Halloween is this week.

After these few amusing moments I allowed myself, I came back to more serious things and thought I would perhaps begin my speech with a reference to the words of the anti-slavery Republican President Abraham Lincoln, who defined democracy in the following way:

Democracy is government of the people, by the people, for the people.

That is quite simple, but quite concrete. I will not analyze this wonderful definition in detail, but the more time goes by under the Conservative regime, the more certain I become that our country is straying dangerously far from that democratic ideal.

When day after day I see how the members of this government, the Prime Minister's Office and the Prime Minister himself seem mired in expense scandals, questionable deals made behind Canadians' backs, the silencing of dissident voices and the introduction of measures that are so complex that people feel their basic rights are being breached, I sincerely worry about the very future of our parliamentary system.

For the fourth time in two and a half years, this government is trying to circumvent parliamentary and public oversight. As the saying goes, just the once will not hurt, but four times in two and a half years means it is becoming a habit for this government.

Canadians deserve better than a Conservative omnibus bill that again hurts Canadian families by increasing the cost of living and that creates very few or no jobs when all is said and done. This bill is very big. Its 300-odd pages cover 70 acts, and we have only a few days or a few weeks, to study such a bill. The entire package will very likely be studied by the Standing Committee on Finance, which must really have significant expertise in appointing Supreme Court justices, employment insurance and immigration. The committee members are exceedingly multi-talented.

I often wonder what I am doing in the House, if not fighting for democracy. These bills are so huge that it becomes very difficult to properly analyze and fully understand them. They usually contain an alarming number of wide-ranging measures intended to hide other controversial ones, such as the measures attacking Canada's public service.

For months now, the government's methods and attitude when it comes to employment insurance matters have been symptomatic of the Conservative ministers' inability to implement a policy and measures to move the country forward. These same ministers are being given more and more power with each omnibus bill.

The democratic process that is based on dialogue and collaboration was so violated that the reform turned into a hatchet job. Everywhere I go, Canadians feel attacked, deeply hurt and, worse than anything, poorer. When people feel poorer, it is because they can see it when they manage their weekly budget.

This is why we as NDP members are categorically opposed to this bill. The reasons are many, but I am going to focus on several points that deal specifically with employment insurance.

The NDP has opposed this reform from the outset. After months of consultation in the field, we came to the obvious conclusion that employment insurance reform is an economic failure and it has to be stopped as quickly as possible.

Curiously, in the provinces most affected by the reform, it is the provincial governments that now have to work to assess the disastrous consequences it brings. That is co-operation for you.

It does not make any sense. It is disrespectful for a federal government to refuse to work with its partners in other levels of government, or with practically all the members of this House. Even inside the federal government, voices are being raised to decry the way in which the government is imposing its ideology on such a sensitive issue.

I have given up counting the times when federal officials, who have always worked to serve their fellow Canadians, have shown their distress and their incomprehension at the authoritarian and brutal methods with which they are required to process claimants' files.

Unfortunately, these are not just files that have to be processed with profit-making quotas, probably. These are families that need help. That is the approach that the public service used to have. It is about supporting communities and stimulating the economy.

Bill C-4 follows the same path as the three previous omnibus bills. I am talking about Bills C-38, C-45 and C-60. Now Bill C-4 is amending 70 pieces of legislation and adding two completely new acts. I hope for the next time that this is enough. It also includes such measures as the one to abolish the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board.

To be specific, Bill C-4 abolishes the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board and gives the Minister of Finance the power to manipulate rate-setting. Yet another power gathered unto the bosom of a minister. What does the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board do, or what is it supposed to do? Well, surprise, surprise, the answers in the bill are quite vague. We might say that there are none.

When the Conservatives set up the Employment Insurance Financing Board in 2008, we might have thought that they were headed in the right direction. We heard it said repeatedly in the House that this was probably a step in the right direction. However, one step forward, two steps back—that is what we have become used to with them. We thought that it might be the very tool to prevent successive governments from stealing employment insurance funds to eliminate other deficits. We expected the board to really prevent another misappropriation of that fund such as we saw under the Chrétien and Martin governments.

At that time, tens of billions of dollars in worker and employer premiums were simply stolen by the government. However, when it comes to the Conservatives, appearances can be deceiving and should never be trusted. The board remained a good intention, but in actual fact it is an empty shell, an institution without a soul, without powers and without purpose.

Let us go a bit further. The Employment Insurance Financing Board seems to bother the Conservative government. Why is this organization so bothersome? Why does it want to abolish it?

By eliminating the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board, once again the government is toying dangerously with morality. However, we feel it is essential to guarantee the protection of the premiums paid by employers and workers throughout Canada. It is a matter of social justice and fairness for all. Who among us can be sure that he or she will have a job for life and will never have to turn to employment insurance? The answer is simple—no one can.

Why continually attack those who are looking for work? Why does the government constantly attack those who are having trouble finding long-term, stable, permanent employment?

In conclusion, unemployment is of course a major concern for NDP members. We will introduce reforms to create jobs and curtail employment uncertainty everywhere in Canada as early as 2015, and even earlier.

In 2015, when we replace this tired government that is mired in scandals, we will restore a mechanism to protect the employment insurance fund so that the money that is put into it is used in the way it was intended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the same issue over and over again in my constituency office, families who have been seeking reunification, patiently waiting. I am horrified by the change in policy and the moving of the goalposts for so many families that have been doing all the right things, filing all the right papers; they find they have to start all over again.

My question is on the member's last point, on finding omnibus budget bills. In the last number of years the Conservatives have done two omnibus bills per budget. In 2012-2013 we had a spring omnibus budget bill, C-38, and then a fall omnibus budget bill, C-45, then Bill C-60 and now Bill C-4. Each of these monstrous bills has included many aspects that had nothing at all to do with the budget, but were mere expedients for pushing things through the House that much faster.

I wonder if the hon. member knows what the official opposition would do? Could we have House rules to restrict when omnibus bills are legitimate? How would the official opposition deal with this problem?

[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.

[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.

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.

Crown Corporations

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise today to present a petition signed by nearly 800 people who are complaining about the interference in collective bargaining that would arise from Bill C-60. The petitioners are seeking to preserve the autonomy of these crown corporations.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this time last week, I said that I hoped to have a substantial list of accomplishments to report to the House. Indeed, I do.

In just the last five days, thanks to a lot of members of Parliament who have been here sitting late at night, working until past midnight, we have accomplished a lot. Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1, the important job-creating bill, which was the cornerstone of our government's spring agenda, passed at third reading. Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, passed at third reading. Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, passed at third reading. Bill C-62, the Yale First Nation final agreement act, was reported back from committee and was passed at report stage and passed at third reading. Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act, was reported back from committee. Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, was reported back from committee this morning with amendments from all three parties. Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act, has been passed at committee, and I understand that the House should get a report soon. Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, passed at second reading. Bill S-17, the tax conventions implementation act, 2013, passed at second reading. Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, passed at second reading. Bill S-6, the first nations elections act, has been debated at second reading. Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act, has been debated at second reading. Bill S-16, the tackling contraband tobacco act, has been debated at second reading. Finally, Bill C-65, the respect for communities act, was also debated at second reading.

On the private members' business front, one bill passed at third reading and another at second reading. Of course, that reflects the unprecedented success of private members advancing their ideas and proposals through Parliament under this government, something that is a record under this Parliament. This includes 21 bills put forward by members of the Conservative caucus that have been passed by the House. Twelve of those have already received royal assent or are awaiting the next ceremony. Never before have we seen so many members of Parliament successfully advance so many causes of great importance to them. Never in Canadian history have individual MPs had so much input into changing Canada's laws through their own private members' bills in any session of Parliament as has happened under this government.

Hard-working members of Parliament are reporting the results of their spring labours in our committee rooms. Since last week, we have got substantive reports from the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Standing Committee on Health, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

We are now into the home stretch of the spring sitting. Since I would like to give priority to any bills which come back from committee, I expect that the business for the coming days may need to be juggled as we endeavour to do that.

I will continue to make constructive proposals to my colleagues for the orderly management of House business. For example, last night, I was able to bring forward a reasonable proposal for today's business, a proposal that had the backing of four of the five political parties that elected MPs. Unfortunately, one party objected, despite the very generous provision made for it with respect to the number of speakers it specifically told us it wanted to have. Nonetheless, I would like to thank those who did work constructively toward it.

I would point out that the night before, I made a similar offer, again, based on our efforts to accommodate the needs of all the parties.

Today we will complete second reading of Bill S-16, the tackling contraband tobacco act. Then we will start second reading of Bill C-57, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act.

Tomorrow morning we will start report stage of Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act. Following question period, we will return to the second reading debate on Bill S-6, the first nations elections act.

On Monday, before question period, we will start report stage and hopefully third reading of Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act. After question period Monday, we will return to Bill C-49, followed by Bill C-65, the respect for communities act.

On Tuesday, we will also continue any unfinished business from Friday and Monday. We could also start report stage, and ideally, third reading of Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act that day.

Wednesday, after tidying up what is left over from Tuesday, we will take up any additional bills that might be reported from committee. I understand that we could get reports from the hard-working finance and environment committees on Bill S-17 and Bill S-15 respectively.

Thereafter, the House could finish the four outstanding second-reading debates on the order paper: Bill C-57; Bill C-61; Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act; and Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act.

I am looking forward to several more productive days as we get things done for Canadians here in Ottawa.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to have that level of civility. I congratulate my friend across the way.

Before asking the usual Thursday question and before the government House leader across the way starts to talk about how he has been able to abuse Parliament over the past week, I would like to make a small observation for all those listening.

Of all the bills I am sure he is about to mention that are important, not a single bill passed through this legislative process in anything resembling a normal fashion. Bills S-8, S-15, S-17, S-2, S-6, S-10, S-16, C-56 and C-60, every single bill we have debated in the past week, operated under time allocation. I might parenthetically add that seven of them came from the Senate. It seems like a strange place for the government to get its agenda: a bunch of unelected, under-investigation senators, but so be it. It is the government's choice.

We tried to work with the government to find ways to allow the House to debate bills and to do so expediently. A good example is the Sable Island as a national park bill. For example, we offered up about five or six speakers who wanted to address the merits of the bill, which would have allowed the passage of that bill after they had spoken. The reaction from the leader from the other side was to move time allocation, which in fact ended up taking up more time in the House than the offer the NDP had made would have taken.

The Conservatives' strategy is sometimes bizarre. In fact, it is hard to figure out whether it is a strategy or not. I would like the Conservative member to enlighten me on this, even though the Conservatives' responses have no merit.

We have spent more than 14 hours debating and voting on time allocation motions in the past two weeks alone. I find it ironic that the government allots only five hours of debate to the content of the bill under time allocation, when the vast majority of our time is spent debating and voting on the time allocation motions and not on the bills. That is the Conservatives' way of doing business.

When will the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons learn that a hammer is not the only tool available for getting the work done?

Could the leader of the government tell us what his plans are for this week and the week following?

Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-17, which is a lengthy statute to deal with certain double taxation conventions between Canada and Namibia, Serbia, Poland, Hong Kong, Luxembourg and Switzerland. This is second reading debate. I want to say at the outset that the official opposition supports the bill.

I would like to divide my comments into four parts: first, the process that led us here; second, the issue of time allocation; third, just what double taxations are designed to achieve; and fourth, comments about international tax avoidance and tax evasion and why the bill is such a baby step in that direction.

Bill S-17 is 103 pages long. The bill started in the Senate, and lest anyone say this represents a great illustration of the utility of the other place, the government itself has acknowledged that this is routine legislation, and I note that since 1976, there is a convention that bills of this sort, dealing with tax convention legislation, originate in the Senate. In fact, there have been 30 different pieces of tax convention legislation in front of Parliament since 1976.

The bill is designed to bring into effect certain bilateral income tax conventions with the countries I mentioned. It is not a bill that represents significant, staggering, revolutionary change. On the contrary, I think the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance accurately characterized the bill as a routine housekeeping type of statute. That was confirmed by the member for Pickering—Scarborough East who said in this place on second reading, “I am delighted and pleased to rise...to kick off the debate on a rather technical and routine piece of legislation”, to which I say that is entirely accurate.

Let me set the stage by saying the New Democratic Party supports harmonization and greater clarity for taxation laws and likes to bring into force these kinds of tax treaties, which as I will describe, are based upon a model tax treaty convention that the OECD generated many years ago and renewed quite recently.

The parliamentary secretary, while in the other place, referred to this as somehow a major step forward in the fight against international tax evasion. For reasons I will describe, that is entirely not accurate.

Let me speak to the second point I wanted to raise, which is the issue of time allocation. The government today, in a rather embarrassing stunt, decided that 43 times it would use what is in effect a closure motion, time allocation, to deny the House the opportunity to scrutinize a bill. It is embarrassing for democracy and shameful. When asked to justify it during the debate on time allocation, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance asked why we do not just pass it, since we support it. He said something about how this is a very important bill dealing with tax havens.

The bill is important. It is routine. However, it takes baby steps to deal with the crisis in tax havens and international tax avoidance, a matter I would like to speak about later in my remarks.

I presume the government is anxious to tell its base that the New Democratic Party, the official opposition, is somehow made up of unreasonable people who refuse to co-operate, and that is why it has to allocate time to debate the matter. We support the bill, and I guess I am just too new here to understand why it needs time allocation when we support this measure. He also said that there had been 100 days of debate on this measure. Surely that is not accurate. Surely he means that maybe it has been before the Senate for 100 days. If that is what he means, I wish to say that the official opposition has no members in that place and I hope it never does.

What is this legislation about? Canadians might not be familiar with double taxation conventions of this sort, so let me say a few things about the nature of this important legislation.

There are perhaps 90 tax conventions Canada has entered into since the 1920s. They have been a routine feature of international law since then. What are they for? The taxation treaties are designed to avoid imposing double taxation in both what is called the source country and the country of the taxpayer's residence. This is distinct from what the government is trumpeting as a great success, which is what are called TIEAs, tax information exchange agreements.

The Conservative government just did one in March, to great fanfare, with Panama. That was said to be a great step forward in the fight against tax evasion and international tax havens. I have news for the government. Panama is a notorious tax haven made up of many banks with lots of drug money, and Canada thinks that by entering into a tax information exchange agreement with that country, it is a great step forward.

One has to know what to ask for under these tax information exchange agreements. That is the basis of some of the provisions of the bill before us, which we are debating today. Many speakers before the finance committee said that they were essentially useless.

Yes, there are some good reasons for these tax conventions, such as the need to promote investment in various countries where the non-resident invests or works, and in fairness, to prevent Canadians and others from paying tax on the same income in two different countries. The concept is very simple. The concept is to avoid paying taxes twice and to set certain standards as to how income from those things will be treated. Dividends are treated differently than interest. Royalties are treated differently than capital gains.

The OECD, of which Canada has long been a member, has entered into a tax convention treaty that sets down these types of standards with fairly, by now, routine amounts of tax for different kinds of income. That is precisely what this double taxation treaty has done. That, as I said, is by now commonplace.

A country like Canada enters into these solemn conventions, and it is very hard, and should be very hard, to get out of them. One can enter into a protocol that has to be negotiated if it is to be modified. Indeed, there are a couple of protocols in this bill dealing with changes to the long-standing arrangements with Switzerland and Luxembourg. Frankly, the protocols can be changed, but there is still a solemnity. It takes some time. People intend at the international level to enter these for long periods of time, and they should be, and are, difficult to change.

The treatment of different kinds of income I have already described, and the OECD has made that very clear. The details I can confirm in this statute are entirely consistent with what other tax conventions of this kind have done for these different kinds of income. However, there are many other ways and progressive things going on in the world that the bill has nothing to do with. Let me give an example.

There was a recent agreement between the United Kingdom and Switzerland such that British nationals who have money in a Swiss account are subject to the Swiss government determining if they are British nationals, and if so, remitting to the U.K. tax authorities 30% in taxes of the amount in that Swiss account. It is much like a withholding tax. The British person could agree to self-identify and say, yes, he or she is a British citizen, and pay a lower amount of 5% or 10%. Thus, it is an incentive to self-identify if someone has money in a tax haven. Why does Canada not do something like our allies are doing? Nothing like this exists in this fairly routine statute.

What is the bill not about? The parliamentary secretary has told us that it is about international tax evasion and tax havens. I do not think so. It is not about international tax avoidance.

Next week, the G8 is meeting in Northern Ireland. The leader of the United Kingdom, Prime Minister David Cameron, has made it one of his three key priorities to address this crisis in tax havens. It is estimated that we are talking about between $10 trillion and $30 trillion in tax havens abroad.

It is estimated that the Canadian treasury is losing perhaps $7.8 billion every year to tax havens. Canadians need to understand that this is not arcane tax law. It is money that could be in our treasury to pay for goods and services for Canadians. Other Canadians are not paying their fair share, therefore requiring us to do more.

People are outraged by these abuses. Fortunately, the press has done a great job in recent months to show the enormity of this problem. The figures are staggering, the cost is enormous and people are demanding action. I salute the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom for his leadership. I regret that the Canadian government is very much the caboose on that train.

New Democrats will continue to push the Conservatives to take real action on tax havens. We did a supplemental report to the finance committee's study on tax havens and brought out a dozen or so recommendations for meaningful change, not radical change, which, of course, the government resisted. They were the kinds of changes our allies are bringing forward to address this crisis.

While we support the routine negotiating and updating of tax treaties such as this, we will continue to push harder against Conservative policies that have failed to protect the integrity of our tax system and that are furthering the erosion of our tax base.

Let us talk about the priorities of the government in going after tax havens. As I said, the parliamentary secretary would have us believe that there is real action going on in Canada and that we are really serious about this. That may be so, except for the fact that the statistics speak for themselves.

I quote an order paper question, Q-1174, of February 14 of this year, because there has been a lot of misinformation about whether there are cuts at Canada Revenue Agency. The minister reported that after the budget, which we dealt with today, Bill C-60, 2,568 full-time equivalents will be lost to the Canada Revenue Agency. They trumpet two areas: the international audit program and the aggressive tax planning program of the Canada Revenue Agency. In the last four or five years, the government confirmed, in the order paper question I just mentioned, there have been cuts in those as well.

Therefore, the notion that somehow we are serious about tax cheats, that we are out there with both feet and doing our thing like our allies is demonstrably not so. If they could characterize this as an investment, perhaps they could understand the enormous amount of money that could be made if they got serious, just as our allies have. I will provide examples of that in a moment.

Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize winning economist, wrote in The Guardian on May 27, 2013:

Our multinationals have learned how to exploit globalisation in every sense of the term—including exploiting the tax loopholes that allow them to evade their global social responsibilities.

He talks about transfer payments, whereby, as he says firms "make up" the prices of goods of services that they charge each affiliated entity and so forth to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. We have seen that. We have seen that the Cirque du Soleil uses a subsidiary in Luxembourg, a low-tax jurisdiction, to not pay its fair share of taxes in Canada. The Irving family is notorious for this. Of course, there is Apple, Starbucks and Google, and the list goes on. People are outraged.

Canadian firms are just as involved in the creative use of tax havens to avoid paying their fair share. It is the kind of thing that finally seems to be getting attention, albeit not from the Conservative government.

What can be done? What have the French done? They have published a black list of tax havens with bank-secrecy laws. They are simply saying that their French development agency will not operate in the 17 countries that are on the list. Is there any such list in Canada? I do not think so.

They have signed the multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters and have agreed to share information, on request, from other countries—and here is the punchline—with the optional provision for automatic tax information exchange. What does that mean? Luxembourg, Singapore and Austria, all sensitive, traditional bank-secrecy jurisdictions, are among the 50-some countries that have agreed to automatically exchange tax information to help foreign nations clamp down on tax debtors and allow countries to conduct wide-ranging, multi-party tax investigations.

The Globe and Mail reported yesterday, as did the Financial Post today, that Canada is opposing the automatic tax information exchange agreements. To use my analogy again, if there is a train, we barely make the caboose on that train.

Let me talk about what the OECD Secretary-General, Ángel Gurría of Mexico, has recently said about the kind of things this convention deals with:

The [international tax] rules which we have built since the 1920s were meant to avoid double taxation....The problem is we've moved from double taxation to double non-taxation.

I will continue the quote:

Now we don't tax anybody because we've built a set of codes and regulations and law...and culture...where we facilitate the fact that co-operations, through transfer pricing practises, put their profits in low-tax jurisdictions and therefore do not pay what would be considered to be their fair share.

He also said that taxing IT companies such as Google and Amazon had become especially difficult, as they are apparently based in the “ether”.

You can move anywhere and it doesn't matter where you originate the information or where you register the company, basically the consistency is that they [the companies] want to pay less tax.

This is hurting developing countries a great deal as well, as their wealth is taken to tax havens, and Canada has not been aggressive on that score either.

I said I would talk about what other countries are doing. I have given some examples.

The Swiss government and the Americans have been involved in serious negotiations involving their bank secrecy and enablers that come to that country to get Americans to not pay their fair taxes. In 2009, UBS, the largest Swiss bank, agreed to enter into a deferred prosecution agreement with the United States. The bank eventually turned over 4,450 client names. It paid a $780-million fine after admitting criminal wrongdoing and selling tax evasion services to wealthy Americans.

Do we think Canadians are not part of that? We know that they are. Do we think the Canadian government is putting in the energy to deal with this crisis it should? Of course it is not.

That is why the NDP's supplementary report to the finance committee lists a number of things we think need to be done. The government refuses to measure this problem, as our allies have done. The measurement of the tax gap and the like they scoff at as being irrelevant.

I wish it could finally follow the practice of the French, the Australians and the British in doing the right thing, but it does not seem to want to. It cut services. CRA does not have the warm bodies to do the job that is required, and we are supposed to believe that this is different.

We support the bill. We think it is a bill that is in line with modern tax practice in avoiding double taxation. It makes sense at one level. However, when it is sold as something it is not, we have to stand and tell the government that the emperor has no clothes.

It is a great housekeeping bill. I am glad we have a deal with Serbia. I am glad we have a deal with Namibia. I am glad we have a deal with countries that are our allies. However, why can we not see the need to really get serious about tax evasion?

I note that the government has been given information recently, that it had the information from the international consortium that was doing the tax evasion studies and that it had the opportunity to move forward, and it did not. It said in this House that it will take all measures to do so. It did not.

I am hoping, when our government is in the G8, that it shows a tiny bit of leadership on this issue and gets on board with Mr. Cameron, gets on board with the Americans, gets on board, indeed, with all of the G8 and says, “Canada is here to play as well. We're not simply going to take a back seat or ride in the back of the train, in the caboose, on such an important issue”.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I do want to start by reviewing what our House has accomplished over the preceding five days since I last answered the Thursday question.

Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, was passed at third reading. Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act, was passed at third reading. Bill C-63 and Bill C-64, the appropriations laws, passed at all stages last night as part of the last supply day of the spring cycle.

Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, has been debated some more at third reading. Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1, was passed at report stage. Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, was passed at report stage, was debated at third reading, and debate will continue.

Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act, was passed at second reading. Bill C-56, combating counterfeit products act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-17, the tax conventions implementation act, 2013, was debated at second reading.

On Bill C-62, the Yale First Nation final agreement act, we adopted a ways and means motion, introduced the bill, passed it at second reading and it has since passed at committee. I anticipate we will be getting a report from the committee shortly.

Bill S-16, the tackling contraband tobacco act, was given first reading yesterday after arriving from the Senate. Bill C-65, the respect for communities act, was introduced this morning.

Substantive reports from four standing committees were adopted by the House.

On the private members' business front, the House witnessed three bills getting third reading, one being passed at report stage, two being reported back from committee and one was just passed at second reading and sent to a committee.

Last night was the replenishment of private members' business, with 15 hon. members bringing forward their ideas, which I am sure we will vigorously debate.

The House will continue to deliver results for Canadians over the next week. Today, we will finish the third reading debate on Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act. Then we will turn our collective attention to Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, at second reading, followed by Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, at third reading.

Tomorrow we will have the third reading debate on Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1. The final vote on this very important job creation and economic growth bill will be on Monday after question period.

Before we rise for the weekend, we hope to start second reading debate on Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act.

On Monday, we will complete the debates on Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, and Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act.

Today and next week, I would like to see us tackle the bills left on the order paper, with priority going to any bills coming back from committee.

As for the sequencing of the debates, I am certainly open to hearing the constructive proposals of my opposition counterparts on passing Bill S-6, the First Nations Elections Act, at second reading; Bill S-10, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, at second reading; Bill S-12, the Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, at second reading; Bill S-13, the Port State Measures Agreement Implementation Act, at second reading; Bill S-16, at second reading; Bill S-17, at second reading; Bill C-57, the Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, at second reading; Bill C-61, at second reading; and Bill C-65, at second reading.

Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to having another list of accomplishments to share with you, and all honourable members, this time next Thursday.

Suffice it to say, we are being productive, hard-working and orderly in delivering on the commitments we have made to Canadians.

There having been discussions among the parties that it will receive unanimous consent, I would like to propose a motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of this House, the member for Peace River be now permitted to table the Report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development in relation to Bill C-62, An Act to give effect to the Yale First Nation Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Standing Committee on Finance--Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I am now prepared to rule on a point of order raised on May 29 by the hon. House leader of the official opposition regarding the process followed by the Standing Committee on Finance with respect to its consideration of Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures.

I would like to thank the hon. House leader of the official opposition for having raised this issue, and the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the members for Winnipeg North, Richmond—Arthabaska and Saanich—Gulf Islands for their interventions.

In raising this point of order, the opposition House leader claimed that the order adopted by the Standing Committee on Finance on May 7, respecting its consideration of Bill C-60, went beyond the committee's authority as conferred by the House. Specifically, he explained that the committee order invited certain other standing committees to study different parts of the bill and, along with independent members, to submit amendments to the Standing Committee on Finance.

He explained further that the committee order also provided that such amendments would be deemed moved so that the committee could consider and vote on them. This, he argued, was an instance of a committee exceeding its prescribed authority, since the House had determined that the bill was sent to the finance committee only and since House rules dictate that committee membership is determined solely by the House and cannot include members of non-recognized parties. In addition, he noted that it contravened the rule that only committee members can move motions and that even they must, in fact, be present at the committee to do so.

The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons contended that it was an established practice that one standing committee could invite other standing committees to consider the subject matter of relevant sections of a bill it is studying with a view to submitting amendments. Furthermore, he suggested that the inclusion of independent members in the committee’s proceedings was part of an evolutionary process, one that was in no way discriminatory since the deadline for submitting amendments was the same for all concerned: independent members, other committees and even members of the committee itself. He explained that, in effect, this process was simply an effort by the committee to respond directly to the suggestion that I had made in a ruling on December 12, 2012, on a similar matter.

For her part, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands questioned whether the committee process was in procedural conformity with my ruling, as well as whether, as a result of the committee order, her rights as a member had somehow been restricted, even put aside. The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska made similar arguments, highlighting what he perceived to have been an erosion of his rights with regard to the submission of amendments at report stage.

In the case before us, in many respects, is a logical evolution of procedural events that have unfolded in the last year, and indeed of events of over 10 years ago. In fact, to place the matter in its proper context, it is necessary to refer to the March 21, 2001, statement by Speaker Milliken, found at page 1991 of the Debates, which set us on a path to where we are today with respect to the committee and report stages of the legislative process. That statement clearly established the guidelines that the Chair now uses to discharge its responsibility with respect to the selection of amendments at report stage. Indeed, the very process of selection was born out of a need to return report stage to its original purpose, that is, the consideration of only those amendments that could not have been moved in committee.

Speaker Milliken was clear in his intent when he urged:

...all members and all parties to avail themselves fully of the opportunity to propose amendments during committee stage so that the report stage can return to the purpose for which it was created, namely for the House to consider the committee report and the work the committee has done...

These guiding principles are embodied in the interpretive notes attached to Standing Orders 76(5) and 76.1(5), which have allowed committees to a large extent to remain the central focus for the detailed study of bills, thereby ensuring that report stage not become a repetition of committee stage.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, explains, at pages 783 and 784:

As a general principle, the Speaker seeks to forestall debate on the floor of the House which is simply a repetition of the debate in committee…Furthermore, the Speaker will normally only select motions in amendment that could not have been presented in committee. A motion previously defeated in committee will only be selected if the Speaker judges it to be of such significance to Members as to warrant further consideration at report stage.

However, the strength of these guidelines has been tested in the recent past as the House faced voluminous report stage proceedings, first in June 2012 with Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, and then in November 2012 with C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures.

These two cases brought into sharp relief the difficulties faced by independent members with respect to committee proceedings on bills, specifically in reference to the provisions of Standing Order 119, which do not permit a member who is not a member of the committee to move any motion, nor to vote, nor to be part of any quorum. These circumstances cause some members to call into question the ability of the House's rules and practices to safeguard the intended purpose of report stage.

They also gave rise to a ruling on December 12, 2012, in which I addressed the issue of the participation of independent members in the process of amending bills, particularly in committee. In that ruling, I suggested that, until committees found a way to enable independent members to have their amendments considered at the committee stage, the Chair would continue to allow them to do so at report stage. I stated at that time, at page 13224 of the House of Commons Debates:

The Standing Orders currently in place offer committees wide latitude to deal with bills in an inclusive and thorough manner that would balance the rights of all members.

and

…there is no doubt that any number of procedural arrangements could be developed that would ensure that the amendments that independent members wish to propose to legislation could be put in committee.

To answer this fully would be to ask the Chair to reach into and adjudicate upon committee matters, a practice the House has long resisted, given that committees are masters of their own proceedings, as we are apt to say.

In my ruling of November 29, 2012, on a similar case, consistent with these long-standing practices of the House, I informed members that in the absence of a report from the committee, the Chair would not delve further into committee matters. In doing so, I quoted Speaker Milliken, who on November 27, 2002, stated:

As Speaker, I appreciate the responsibility that I have to defend the rights of all members and especially those of members who represent minority views in the House. At the same time, it is a long tradition in this place that committees are masters of their own proceedings. Ordinarily the House is only seized of a committee matter when the committee reports to the House outlining the situation that must be addressed.

He then added:

That being said, it is true as well that committees are permitted a greater latitude in the conduct of their proceedings than might be allowed in the House. It may not always be clear in a particular set of circumstances how best to proceed and so the ultimate decision is left to the committee itself.

At the same time, the Chair is also cognizant of its responsibility for the selection of report stage motions and the fact that what happened in the finance committee in this instance has had a direct bearing on my selection decisions in the case of the report stage of Bill C-60 and on independent members. Accordingly, the Chair feels compelled to address some of the issues raised, particularly as they relate to their impact on independent members.

As I understand it, the principal concern raised about the committee process was the committee's decision to deem moved any amendments submitted by independent members and certain other committees during the committee's clause-by-clause consideration. The main concern expressed by the opposition House leader with this manner of proceeding is that in his view it exceeded the committee's mandate. He argued that to deem motions to be moved is a clear violation of Standing Order 119, which stipulates that only permanent members of a standing committee can move motions. The opposition House leader stated that as a result, the process adopted by the finance committee was fundamentally flawed.

It should come as no surprise to members that the House and its committees frequently resort to procedural motions to facilitate the flow of business. Procedure in committee is particularly fluid and varied, and many committees routinely use a wide array of processes to organize their work. Deeming things to have taken place is part of that body of precedent.

In the House, this is often achieved by deciding to forgo the usual procedural steps and to assume that certain procedural transactions have taken place even if they have not. For example, it happens from time to time that the House will see fit to adopt a bill at all stages, deeming that each stage has been agreed to. No movers' names are attached to the motions for second reading, concurrence at report stage or third reading.

Similarly, practically on a weekly basis, recorded divisions are deemed demanded and deferred. Again, no members' names are attached to the motions that make this possible. In fact, the House has even been known to tinker with the time-space continuum by deeming it to be a certain time, even when it is not, and by making, say, a Tuesday to be a Monday, as was done a few weeks ago on May 21. Again, no names of members are attached to the motions that make this possible.

Our House and committee annals are rife with examples of this kind. These commonly used procedural instruments are even provided for in some of our Standing Orders. What may be causing difficulty in this case is that while the practice of “deeming” is most often achieved through unanimous consent, it can also occur by majority decision, but of course at greater cost in House or committee time.

In the case before us, it appears that this is the approach that was used by the finance committee. A motion setting out the process to be followed was proposed, debated and ultimately agreed to. As far as the Chair can see, in the absence of a report from the committee to the contrary, Standing Order 119 was not flouted in the process. Instead, it appears rather that a procedural instrument was devised to provide for the manner in which the committee would conduct its business.

Turning to the issue of the rights of independent members, the Chair can only observe that the decision of the finance committee permitted them to do something they could not do before: namely, to have their amendments considered in the committee and, indeed, to be granted, pursuant to Standing Order 119, an opportunity to speak in committee. This is something that was not open to them before. In that sense, they succeeded in obtaining a form of participation in committee proceedings, as imperfect as it may have been in their eyes.

As Speaker, I can only speculate on whether other committees will emulate or, dare I say, perhaps even expand on the spirit of inclusion witnessed in the Standing Committee on Finance.

In summary then, while I am entirely sympathetic to the procedural consequence of this development for independent members at report stage, I must remind the House again of my obligation to ensure that report stage not become a repeat of the committee stage.

As a guardian of the rights and privileges of all members, it is also my duty in this case to ensure that the rules, practices and expectations of the House are upheld and, in so doing, ensure that members are afforded an opportunity to participate in the legislative process. To protect the integrity of report stage, the Chair would have to know that there was no mechanism at all, not just an unsatisfactory one, for a member to move motions in committee.

It is true that the rules of the House may result in varying degrees of participation for members, depending on the proceeding and depending on the status of that member for that proceeding. For instance, members of committees enjoy opportunities that non-committee members do not, and even committee members have varying opportunities to participate.

What the Chair must protect is members' rights to have some mechanism to put forward their ideas.

It is for these reasons that the Chair did not select any motions at report stage that could have been considered, or were considered, in committee.

Accordingly, for all these reasons, I cannot conclude that the rights of independent members have been diminished as a result of the proceedings in the Standing Committee on Finance, particularly when scores of members who were not members of the finance committee, and thus not in a position to propose amendments there, are likewise subjected to the very same report stage restrictions.

In addition, noting that this is a departure from the Chair's long-established practice of not commenting on committee proceedings, again in the absence of a report to the contrary on which to base its interventions, the Chair concludes that Bill C-60 is properly before the House and that it cannot find that a procedurally improper proceeding has taken place in the Standing Committee on Finance.

I would like to thank all hon. members for their attention on this matter.

Crown Corporations

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition in this House from over 2,600 people who oppose Bill C-60, particularly with respect to the Treasury Board's ability to interfere in the collective agreement negotiations of crown corporations. These people are extremely worried, even outraged, about this precedent. Crown corporations must be independent and able to negotiate their collective agreements on their own and at arms' length. This is known as freedom of negotiation and that is why I am presenting this petition today.

Bill C-60--Time Allocation Motion

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the minister for his answers. However, as I sit on the finance committee, it is hypocritical of the other parties to come here and present things that really are not factual. In committee, we heard from a number of witnesses, and the majority supported the measures in Bill C-60.

I also want to reply to some of the comments made by the NDP on how many pieces of legislation are in the bill. This is typical, and I would ask the minister to comment on how typical it is. The minister commented on the Liberals having a longer bill in 2001.

It is hypocritical when the NDP government in Manitoba recently, on May 31, was criticized for its omnibus budget bill, which actually introduces a controversial new subsidy for political parties. As members know, we are eliminating political subsidies. We think it is important that donations come to parties from taxpayers. However, the NDP government in Manitoba is going to provide new political aid through taxpayer funds in its omnibus budget bill. It is also going to reduce penalties for cabinet ministers in that omnibus bill. I do not agree with that. Let us hear from the minister about how typical it is to effect change with a number of legislations. What we will not do is hide things, as we see in Manitoba, in our omnibus bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me explain the normal stages of a bill as it makes its way through the House and the committees. First, the bill, the subject matter of which is often rather complicated, passes at second reading and is studied intensively during four or five meetings in committee. Then, it comes back to the House to be debated. All that for just one bill.

However, in the case of the budget implementation bill, Bill C-60, which amends, adds or eliminates about 50 laws, only two and a half meetings of the Standing Committee on Finance, of which I am a member, were devoted to the provisions of Bill C-60.

I would remind hon. members that this bill includes two rather complex parts on taxation and a third part on various amendments to a number of statutes. Indeed, 18 different parts might have needed 18 separate bills.

We were given just one day of debate at second reading and two and a half meetings at the Standing Committee on Finance. Some very superficial meetings were held at other committees, but there was never any real study in committee. The committee on investment held just one meeting with officials and that is all. We did not even get to propose amendments in the Standing Committee on Finance.

How can the President of the Treasury Board claim that we have had ample time to debate Bill C-60, when we really only took an extremely superficial look at it?

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

Mr. Speaker, every time there is time allocation on bills, the government breaks all records for that. The time for debate is shortened and that means limited time for members of Parliament, such as myself. I appreciate the hon. President of the Treasury Board said that there were opportunities. I tried to get to all the various committee hearings on Bill C-60, because it is such important legislation. As I am not a member of those committees, I am not allowed to ask questions.

However, the way in which witnesses are being treated in this current administration is an aberration compared to previous parliamentary procedures where in legislative committees witnesses would actually have sufficient time to put forward a 20-minute presentation and take lots of questions. We now have whole panels on many different topics. One panel can cover different topics. It gets five minutes and very little time for actual discussion and certainly no real deliberation, because everything is prescribed by partisan discipline.

In this context, right now on Bill C-60, I will have no opportunity to speak whatsoever. As you know, Mr. Speaker, and I am not protesting this point, none of my amendments or deletions or suggestions for Bill C-60 were chosen. I do not think there will be any speaking opportunity, yet I represent not just my party but my constituents, who have significant concerns.

We heard the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan speak about the changes to crown corporations, the changes to taxation of credit unions and the failure to define national security, one of the few opportunities we have had to put a definition of national security in the Investment Canada Act. None of these points will I be able to give more than the cursory 30 seconds here and there. Because with time allocation, I will have no speaking opportunity.

I would like to ask the hon. President of the Treasury Board if he would speak to his government whip and ask that I be given one of the speaking slots for Conservative members.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from a number of witnesses, including Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, at committee. Also members of the finance committee received a letter from Hubert Lacroix, the president of CBC, who took what was almost an unprecedented step of writing to member and essentially threatening a court case if Bill C-60 passed without amendment. He said, “this legislation threatens the independence of the CBC and Radio Canada”. He said:

We believe that the proposed amendments to the Financial Administration Act...may conflict with key parts of the Broadcasting Act, our Corporation's governing legislation, and as a result, would reduce the independence that is critical to our operation.

He also said, “may give rise to conflicts with the Broadcasting Act and the Charter” and could ultimately lead to significant challenges in legal challenges with the corporation. He simply said that we could avoid all of this with an amendment that would protect the independence of the CBC.

Why is the government so hell-bent on driving this legislation through with closure? Why is the government not considering constructive amendments to avoid this kind of conflict with the CBC and this threat to the independence of public broadcasting?

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

Mr. Speaker, today we have a record in this Parliament: 39 times this government has brought time allocation in to end debate, stifle debate, on parliamentary discussion of parliamentary bills.

Its previous own record stood at 31, which in itself is outrageous, but it has brought in time allocation now on 23 different bills since the election, for a total of 39 times.

The bill on which it is now bringing in time allocation is the budget implementation act, another omnibus budget bill, Bill C-60. In this bill, there are changes that would affect dozens of laws. Different parliamentary committees that should have had the opportunity to debate and question and pass some of this bill as separate individual bills have not had that chance.

This bill would affect the collective bargaining process in our crown corporations, would undermine the journalistic independence of the CBC and could undermine the independence of the Bank of Canada. We called for more study on this measure; the government shut that down.

This is a bill that would tinker with the temporary foreign workers program and the Investment Canada Act, which should themselves have separate debates, and it would raise taxes for Canadians across this country.

My question for the hon. minister is this: what is he and his government so afraid of that they have had to bring in time allocation 39 times?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at report stage of the Bill and one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at report stage and on the day allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

Bill C-60—Notice of time allocation motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I must advise the House an agreement has not been reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) concerning the proceedings at report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Canada Post

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in November 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that Canada Post had to honour pay equity and compensate more than 6,000 employees. A year and a half later, the matter is still not settled. When I raised the question, I was told that Canada Post is an independent corporation that manages its own human resources. However, in 2011, the Conservatives did not hesitate to intervene, and if Bill C-60 is passed, they will not stop intervening.

Why do they interfere in Canada Post's affairs when it suits them, but they do not intervene to ensure compliance with a ruling by the highest court in the land?

Safer Witnesses Act

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

Mr. Speaker, people have been beating up a bit on the member for Ottawa South for suggesting we were wasting time and money debating. Nothing is ever a complete waste. There is always some benefit in having debate, even though we all agree that Bill C-51 should pass and we all support the protection of witnesses.

I want to clarify for the member for Brampton West that my own reasons for raising this earlier tonight had nothing to do with wanting to go home, but rather with wanting to have a chance to debate the bills about which we do not agree, such as the omnibus budget bill, Bill C-60, for which we have never had an adequate opportunity to even touch on its various sections. I thought I might clarify that for him.

I completely support this bill. I appreciate that the Conservative majority has brought it forward and I look forward to voting for it and stopping the debates that continue until midnight in this place on matters of which I have no understanding why they are still subject to debate.

Standing Committee on Finance

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in part to add to my submissions of yesterday and in part to respond to the submissions of the hon. House leader of the official opposition and others today.

As I said yesterday, there is a key understanding around here that our committees are the masters of their own proceedings. This is articulated in our procedural literature, such as page 1,047 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition. One portion says:

The concept refers to the freedom committees normally have to organize their work as they see fit and the option they have of defining, on their own, certain rules of procedure that facilitate their proceedings.

On the next page, we see that:

....committees may adopt procedural rules to govern their proceedings, but only to the extent the House does not prescribe anything specific.

As I said, the notion that committees are masters of their own process is true and is often referred to you, Mr. Speaker, when people attempt to appeal decisions that occur in committee to this chamber, which you quite rightly point out is something for those committees.

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley claimed yesterday that a process whereby a motion is deemed moved was some new invention. It is not. In point of fact, this same mechanism was adopted by the status of women committee on April 23 in relation to Bill S-2, family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act. There were no report stage amendments when we took up that bill on Monday.

Motions deemed moved are also contemplated in our Standing Orders. There we are not talking about committees, where we have more relaxed rules but rather in the more stringent environment of rules in this chamber. Taking a look at our rule book, I see that Standing Orders 7(1.1) and 8(2) provide that the appointments of the Speaker's three fellow chair occupants are all made on motions which are deemed to have been moved.

I have been here every night at midnight or later when the government orders finish. At the start of every night's late show, the Chair reads out the formula:

Pursuant to Standing Order 38 a motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been moved and seconded.

I could list off a number of other Standing Orders where motions are deemed to have been moved, but I think I have made my point. There is nothing novel or new about it. It is an accepted practice of this House and it is done often.

Going back to committee procedures more specifically, let me quote an excerpt from O'Brien and Bosc, which was not tendered yesterday. Page 1,018 says:

Committees often adopt sessional orders that govern the granting of the right to speak in cases where witnesses are to be questioned. Consequently, it is rare that a non-member is able to participate in such proceedings. Non-members are occasionally given the right to speak, however, following a decision by a majority of the members present or by unanimous consent.

It was exactly such a majority vote to enable participation by the independent members of Parliament that the committee took on May 7.

Turning to Beauschene's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition, citation 760(3) reads:

The Speaker has ruled on many occasions that it is not competent for the Speaker to exercise procedural control over the committees. Committees are and must remain masters of their own procedure.

I referenced that earlier.

Citation 762 meanwhile provides that:

Proceedings in the committees are more relaxed in nature than those in the House as the requirements which must be observed in the Chamber are not so strictly enforced when Members sit as committees.

At page 1030 of O'Brien and Bosc, there is a review of cases where committees have allowed even non-parliamentarians to participate in committee deliberations. Citation 771 of Beauschene's covers the same ground.

As I said yesterday, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley sought to relitigate the issue addressed by your November 29, 2012 ruling, at pages 12,609 and 12,610 of Debates.

As the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands reminded us this morning, Speakers' rulings are not actually subject to appeal.

In that ruling, Mr. Speaker, you said the finance committee's invitation to other committees to submit suggested amendments to Bill C-45, an invitation which was renewed to some committees for Bill C-60 extended to independent members of Parliament the following:

....it is true that committee practice is of considerable flexibility and fluidity. This is acknowledged by the opposition House leader....

That is the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

....himself who spoke of the need for committees to respect clear and distinct limits but declared to that, “when work is assigned to it by the House, it is largely up to the committee to decide how and when to tackle it”.

Your ruling continues:

It should be noted that in the present case, even though other committees were invited to suggest amendments, it is the finance committee itself that chose to do so. It also decided how to deal with any suggested amendments and it retained the ability to decide whether or not to adopt any such amendments.

Of course these words carry weight as rulings from the Chair and not, as the hon. NDP House leader described them yesterday, “some convenient article”. Nothing changed between Bill C-45 and Bill C-60, except for the finance committee's generous invitation, which was broadened to include members of Parliament who do not sit on the standing committee of the House .

Yesterday the House leader for the official opposition quoted page 775 of O'Brien and Bosc, which pertains to rulings on inadmissible amendments made by committees, that is to say, for example, amendments which go beyond the scope of a bill.

Mr. Speaker Milliken's ruling of February 27, 2007, which was quoted yesterday, was on that point. What is important to note is that the subject amendments would also have been inadmissible at report stage because they went beyond the principle adopted at second reading.

I now want to turn to two comments made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North yesterday. In his remarks, he stated, “We have to be very careful when we look at changing rules”.

We are not changing the rules here. The finance committee looked at creative ways within our existing rules, and did so on your invitation, I might add, of maximizing the input of all corners of this House in its work on the government's important budget legislation. The committee should be commended for responding to that invitation. He also stated that the Liberal Party opposed this matter.

Yesterday, I quoted the Liberal finance critic's comments at Tuesday's committee meeting on clause-by-clause study. A further look at the evidence of the May 7 meeting, where the invitation was adopted by the finance committee, would show, at page 20, that the hon. member for Kings—Hants had proposed an amendment to delete paragraphs (d) to (g) of the motion. The invitation to the independent MPs is not found in those paragraphs that he proposed to delete. It is found in paragraph (c). Therefore, his amendment would have actually preserved the invitation to the independents. That is what I was speaking of as my understanding of the position of the Liberal Party.

I quite reasonably concluded that the Liberal finance critic's words and actions at the committee spoke as the substantive position of the third party at that committee and here in the House.

Having now augmented my case that the proceedings in the finance committee are in order, I want to turn to the consequences of those proceedings.

The hon. members for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour and Saanich—Gulf Islands forwarded three amendments and 11 amendments respectively to the finance committee for its consideration. As we heard this morning, interventions in support of their amendments were allowed during the finance committee's clause-by-clause study in the total amount of time roughly proportionate to the number of amendments they each put forward.

It is important that we all understand that they were not just invited to submit amendments. It is important to note, in the context of the arguments that were made by them in the House, that they were also afforded an opportunity to participate at the committee. They were not to participate as full members of the committee, but to speak, to explain the nature of the amendments and to make their case. That is an extraordinary step forward. It is an advance. It shows that they were given more than just an opportunity, as was suggested, to submit amendments that someone else then proposed. They had an opportunity to explain their positions on why those amendments were of merit. This is indeed meaningful participation. It allows them to explain their position on the merits and to participate in the process to get their point of view heard.

Yesterday, I quoted from your December 12, 2012 ruling on report stage practices. I underscored your observation that there was “wide latitude” for committees. I should add that you did not say that the House had wide latitude to amend the Standing Orders. The committee's wide latitude already exists.

As I said yesterday, the generous process struck by the finance committee, I would submit, is four-square within your ruling and would serve as a model for that “satisfactory mechanism” that your ruling cited and your constructive challenge to the creativity found among the members of the House that your ruling invited.

Under this satisfactory mechanism, Mr. Speaker, it is critical to point out that the independents are not disadvantaged in relation to any other member. This is a critically important point to understand. Their right to give notice of report stage motions remains unfettered. What it does, sir, is allow you an opportunity to apply a consistent standard across the board in your selection of report stage motions, whether they are proposed by a Conservative, New Democrat, Liberal, Bloc, Green or an independent.

By virtue of the opportunity to participate and present amendments at committee, to have them heard, they are now, as independent members of this House, put on an equal footing with every other member of this House. They can propose report stage amendments. You, of course, select them in accordance with the rules, but it is achieving that equality of participation and fairness in which no individual member of this House is either advantaged or disadvantaged in accordance with our rules.

The selection criteria are set out in the note attached to Standing Order 76.(5), which provides that, “The Speaker will normally only select motions that were not or could not be presented in committee”.

That was never intended as a loophole to give to certain members of this House an extra right. However, we, through circumstances in your previous ruling, saw what one of the intended consequences of that was, and hence, you provided the invitation that it could be remedied by an effort at the committee to allow independent members to submit amendments to make their views heard at the committee stage. That is what the finance committee did.

The finance committee's mechanism, which I submit is consistent with your earlier ruling, is more than consistent, and it responds to your invitation. It enables the amendments of the independent members to be presented in committee, as that note contemplates.

Moreover, I would draw your attention to a further passage from the note: “A motion, previously defeated in committee, will only be selected if the Speaker judges it to be of such exceptional significance...”.

Accordingly, I would respectfully submit that should tomorrow's notice paper contain report stage amendments appearing in the name of a member who does not sit in a recognized party's caucus, aside from those that propose to delete clauses, it should not be selected for consideration at report stage.

In closing, I would observe that today's notice paper has four notices from the leader of the Green Party of motions to delete certain clauses of Bill C-60. In her submission to you this morning she said, and I quote from the blues, “As a matter of practical reality, the only way to have a speaking opportunity...is to have amendments tabled at report stage.”

Perhaps the answer here lies in the last sentence of Standing Order 76.1(5). “If an amendment has been selected that has been submitted by more than one Member, the Speaker, after consultation, shall designate which Member shall propose it.”

Although other members got identical notices in sooner, perhaps the balanced approach here is to call one of those motions in her name so that she can give a speech and participate in report stage, as she seeks to. Such a creative approach could well complement the finance committee's mechanism to allow independents a chance to get their views expressed in the House without creating yet more voting marathons. The exercise of this discretion could well eliminate the farcical scenes outside the offices of journals Branch last year in which New Democrats and Liberals treated us to camp-out expeditions to get their notices in first.

I would also point out that the Bloc has several deletion motions on notice as well. The same rule would apply, although I understand that some of those deletion motions stand only in their name, which would also satisfy the opportunity of ensuring they did get the ability to speak here at report stage that they seek. This, of course, would answer the concern or objection that is raised there.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, I think what you see here is a good-faith effort by the folks on the finance committee to respond to an invitation you provided, to improve the process and to enhance the rights of the independent members of this House. What we are proposing to you here is a further remedy that is wholly within your power and your ability right now to address what other additional deficiencies they fear they may encounter at report stage barring their ability to participate. This would ensure their ability to participate without any of those other adverse consequences that we have seen in the past.

I think it is a good model of the way in which, when we head into uncharted waters, you can, through your rulings, and through constructive dialogue with the committees of this House and the members of this House, evolve the rules in a fashion that works in the way you want it to, and that is to protect, in this case, the rights of the independent members of Parliament.

I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that if you were to submit, and accept the arguments of the House leader of the official opposition, exactly the opposite would occur. You would be rejecting a process that was designed in good faith to provide those independent members an opportunity to participate in committee, and saying to reject the very invitation that you made and the suggestions you made for improvement.

Should you find favour with that perspective, you will not see an advance for the defence of the rights of independent members of Parliament here; you will in fact see them constrained and straitjacketed, no longer able to participate in the committee. For there will, of course, be no reason for the committee to exercise such an approach to invite their participation because under the rules of this House, they do not sit as members of the committees; that is a long-standing practice of this House.

I could ascribe motive and say that we know that the New Democrats do not want to see the Green Party or the Bloc Québécois members, who represent their rivals electorally regionally, have this additional profile and ability to participate. Perhaps that is their motive, I do not know.

However, all I know is that what we have here is a good faith effort by a committee. To respond to your invitation, Mr. Speaker, a set of constructive solutions will advance the dialogue, help us solve these problems and make this House a more functional place that will not be held in disrepute by the public, but rather will be seen to be focused on working, debating the important issues of the day, getting the work done and allowing the votes and decisions to be taken here that people send us to make.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the point of order raised yesterday by the House leader of the official opposition, because it pertained to our presence in committee.

We are not asking for more privileges than the others. We are just asking for the few rights that we do have to be respected. There are 308 MPs in the House, who were all legitimately and democratically elected. The rules of Parliament are supposed to allow all of us, from the Prime Minister right down through the ranks, to do our work as legislators for the benefit of our constituents, whether we are members of recognized parties or not.

Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to see that you want to uphold the principles behind your December 12, 2012, ruling, which reminded members that, in accordance with page 307 of the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

It is the responsibility of the Speaker to act as the guardian of the rights and privileges of Members and of the House as an institution.

You then went on to say that:

Accordingly, unless and until new satisfactory ways of considering the motions of all members to amend bills in committee are found, the Chair intends to continue to protect the rights of independent members to propose amendments at report stage.

That is exactly what we expect of you, Mr. Speaker. A new satisfactory way of considering our amendments in committee can only be interpreted as an opportunity not only to table amendments or simply send them by fax, but also to put them forward ourselves in committee, debate them and vote on them, exactly as we do now at report stage. I am sure you will agree that we cannot rely on the goodwill of committee members, our political opponents, to put forward our amendments. Even if they wanted to, it would be impossible for them to debate and explain what amendments proposed by independent members or members of the Bloc Québécois or the Green Party are all about and the reasons behind them.

However, your decision opens the door to testing certain procedural measures in order to allow members of non-recognized parties and independent members to propose amendments to bills in committee. You also said:

..its report stage selection process would adapt to the new reality.

We understood what that meant, and we were not the only ones. The government interpreted it in its own way, as did the opposition parties. We are willing to participate in committee work with the understanding that we are not permanent members of the committees and that a time limit will be imposed on us based on our respective weight in the House. However, we want to have the same right we have at report stage in the House: the right to propose, debate and put to a vote our own amendments. Simply faxing or emailing our amendments to a committee may be an efficient method of having our amendments studied in committee, but I respectfully submit that it would strip us of the fundamental right to represent our constituents, a right that is enjoyed by all other members of the House. Report stage is when we are currently given the opportunity to exercise that right.

I sincerely believe that the scope of your ruling of December 12, 2012, was not intended to deny us our rights and make us second-class members. I believe that your ruling was designed to invite committees to use Standing Order 119, which allows them to give MPs who are not permanent members the right to speak. It was in response to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, who, on November 28, 2012, asked you to muzzle members of non-recognized parties and independent MPs. That member referred to the changes imposed by Speaker Milliken to minimize the use of motions of a repetitive, frivolous or vexatious nature or of a nature that would serve merely to prolong unnecessarily proceedings. None of the motions moved by the Bloc since the May 2011 election have met that description. We also feel that there is a need to clamp down on abuse, but that this should not be done at the expense of our rights and privileges, as the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons sadly proposed. O'Brien and Bosc fully explains those rights and privileges:

In recommending that report stage be restored, the 1968 Special Committee on Procedure believed that stage to be essential in order to provide all Members of the House, and not merely members of the committee, with an opportunity to express their views on bills under consideration and to propose amendments, where appropriate. For all that, the intent of the Committee was not for this stage to become a repetition of committee stage.

We were recently able to test out this new direction you gave, Mr. Speaker, in response to the comments by the government House leader. Following the vote at second reading stage of Bill C-60, we were invited to propose amendments in committee. According to the committee motion, these amendments were deemed proposed during clause-by-clause study. Technically, we were not allowed to propose our amendments since we are not members of the committee.

Following an email exchange and meetings with the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, we were able to briefly present our amendments because we did not have many, we were told. The official opposition made sure to remind us that we were not members of the committee under the rules and procedures of the House.

My colleague, the hon. member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, was not allowed to ask the officials present any questions, and the leader of the Green Party was unable to respond to comments on the amendments. Our participation was reduced to an absolute minimum.

In your ruling on December 12, 2012, you said:

The Standing Orders currently in place offer committees wide latitude to deal with bills in an inclusive and thorough manner that would balance the rights of all members. In fact, it is neither inconceivable nor unprecedented for committees to allow members, regardless of party status, permanently or temporarily, to be part of their proceedings, thereby opening the possibility for the restoration of report stage to its original purpose. For inspiration on the possibilities, members need only to remember that there are several precedents where independent members were made members of standing committees. Short of that, there is no doubt that any number of procedural arrangements could be developed that would ensure that the amendments that independent members wish to propose to legislation could be put in committee.

I think that the opportunity to be part of a committee would help us find that balance you are looking for and we are looking for.

At report stage, we can table and propose, debate and vote on amendments, thanks to the notes to Standing Orders 76(5) and 76.1(5) to which you refer in your decision of December 12, 2012, on the selection of report stage amendments:

For greater certainty, the purpose of this Standing Order is, primarily, to provide Members who were not members of the committee, with an opportunity to have the House consider specific amendments they wish to propose.

We participated in good faith in the process recommended by the Standing Committee on Finance, but it is clear that the balance you spoke of in your decision was not achieved.

We, the members of non-recognized parties and independents, are now at the centre of a procedural war between the government and the opposition. We find ourselves in the middle of a ping-pong game where our rights and privileges are in play.

The procedure at report stage that allows us to table, debate and vote on amendments is currently predictable. The new process is clearly not. Not all committees ask us to table amendments. Some invite us to propose amendments but do not give us the opportunity to do it ourselves, and still others, such as the Standing Committee on Finance, allow us to do so, but with every possible restriction.

There are only two options: either we are entitled to propose amendments in committee with all the applicable rights, or we are not and can do so at report stage. What we want are clear rules. We do not want to be tossed around, at the mercy of every arbitrary decision made by each of the committees. We no longer have the resources to cope with the haphazard approach or the whims of the other parties, which would like nothing better than to block us at every turn.

We do not want to have to defend our rights case by case, committee by committee, and make it painfully clear with every bill that we cannot exercise our rights in committee.

In closing, I would like to point out to you that when the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was instructed to examine the standing orders and procedures of the House and its committees, pursuant to the February 17, 2012 motion, I wrote to the chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on February 27, 2012 and requested that a member of the Bloc Québécois sit on the committee for the duration of its work on this matter.

“The fact that we cannot speak in committee is an aberration that deprives us of some of our parliamentary privileges, and that is what we wish to discuss in committee,” I wrote to the committee chair.

The Bloc Québécois was already showing its willingness to work with the committee to address what we consider to be the denial of our parliamentary rights and privileges. The committee never replied to our letter.

As I pointed out yesterday, there are examples of members of non-recognized parties and independents being given rights on the committees of other legislative assemblies.

It seems to me that the evolution of House practices could allow better predictability of the rights of members of non-recognized parties and independents, as is permitted by Standing Order 122 of the National Assembly of Quebec. It states that any independent member or member of an opposition group other than the official opposition can be appointed to a standing committee, which is the equivalent of the committees here in Ottawa. In that case, the committee consists of 12 rather than 10 members.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I are prepared to advance the practices of the House, but our current rights must be preserved.

As guardian of the rights and privileges of the House of Commons, you have a duty to preserve our rights.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, now that we have been sitting for a week under our Conservative government's plans for a harder-working, productive and orderly House of Commons, I would remind all hon. members of what we have been able to achieve since just Victoria Day.

Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012, was passed at report stage and third reading. Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act, was passed at second reading. Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, was passed at report stage and we started third reading debate, which we will finish tonight. Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act was passed at report stage and, just moments ago, at third reading. Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, was passed at second reading. Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, No. 1, was reported back from committee yesterday.

Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, was passed at report stage and we started third reading debate. Bill S-6, the first nations elections act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, which was reported back to the House this morning by the hard-working and fast running member for Peace River, has completed committee. Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act, was debated at second reading.

We will build on this record of accomplishment over the coming week.

This afternoon, as I mentioned, we will finish the second reading debate on Bill C-51. After that, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-56, Combating Counterfeit Products Act.

Tomorrow morning, we will start report stage on Bill C-60, now that the hard-working Standing Committee on Finance has brought the bill back to us. After I conclude this statement, Mr. Speaker, I will have additional submissions for your consideration on yesterday's point of order.

After question period tomorrow, we will get a start on the second reading debate on Bill S-15, Expansion and Conservation of Canada’s National Parks Act. I am optimistic that we would not need much more time, at a future sitting, to finish that debate.

On Monday, before question period, we will debate Bill S-17, Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013, at second reading. In the afternoon, we will hopefully finish report stage consideration of Bill C-60, followed by Bill S-2 at third reading.

On Tuesday, we will return to Bill S-2 if necessary. After that, I hope we could use the time to pass a few of the other bills that I mentioned earlier, as well as the forthcoming bill on the Yale First Nation Final Agreement.

Wednesday, June 5 shall be the eighth allotted day of the supply cycle. That means we will discuss an NDP motion up until about 6:30 p.m. This will be followed by a debate on the main estimates. Then we will pass to two appropriations acts.

Next Thursday, I would like to return back to Bill C-60, our budget implementation legislation, so we can quickly pass that important bill for the Canadian economy.

Standing Committee on Finance

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

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. House leader of the official opposition for raising this point of order yesterday, objecting to the unusual procedures that were accepted within the Standing Committee on Finance, in relation to the clause-by-clause treatment of Bill C-60, the 2013 omnibus budget bill.

Prior to his point of order, I was struggling with a dilemma: I was certain there was an effort to undermine my rights as an individual member of Parliament and yet there had been no formal challenge. I was not sure how to approach this, Mr. Speaker, and to put before you the ways in which I found that procedure unacceptable. I really very much appreciate that the official opposition saw fit to raise its concerns that those procedures and the procedures adopted--novel procedures, mind you--before the Standing Committee on Finance did not comport to parliamentary rules and practice and went beyond the mandate of the committee.

I agree with all the points made by the hon. House leader of the official opposition and by the member for Winnipeg North, on behalf of the Liberal Party.

Before getting down to the particulars of the current situation, I wish to review some fundamental principles related to the matter before you, Mr. Speaker.

In essence, what you are asked to adjudicate here is an effort by a powerful government party with the majority of seats in this place to eliminate what few rights exist to influence legislation in the hands of only eight members of Parliament belonging to two recognized national parties, myself, on behalf of the Green Party, and members here for the Bloc Québécois, plus two members currently sitting as independents.

Within this group, the government party's efforts are aimed only at the Green Party and the Bloc Québécois. We are the only members to have submitted amendments at report stage in the 41st Parliament.

The appropriate balance between the majority and the minority in proceedings of the House is, as Speaker Milliken noted, a fundamental issue.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be providing the written copy of this presentation to you so that I will not have to read out loud all the citations.

The following passage is very apt. Although Speaker Milliken was dealing with a situation with a minority Parliament, the issues before him of balancing the rights of the minority and the majority are the same. I quote from Speaker Milliken's ruling of March 29, 2007:

At the present time, the chair occupants, like our counterparts in House committees, daily face the challenge of dealing with the pressures of a minority government, but neither the political realities of the moment nor the sheer force of numbers should force us to set aside the values inherent in the parliamentary conventions and procedures by which we govern our deliberations.

Continuing:

Unlike the situation faced by committee chairs, a Speaker's decision is not subject to appeal. All the more reason then for the Chair to exercise its awesome responsibility carefully and to ensure that the House does not, in the heat of the moment, veer dangerously off course.

The Speaker must remain ever mindful of the first principles of our great parliamentary tradition, principles best described by John George Bourinot, Clerk of this House from 1890 to 1902, who described these principles thus:

To protect the minority and restrain the improvidence and tyranny of the majority, to secure the transaction of public business in a decent and orderly manner, to enable every member to express his opinions within those limits necessary to preserve decorum and prevent an unnecessary waste of time, to give full opportunity for the consideration of every measure, and to prevent any legislative action being taken heedlessly and upon sudden impulse.

As I noted yesterday, in particular, in your ruling related to the member for Langley's question of privilege, you said:

...[an] unquestionable duty of the Speaker [is] to act as the guardian of the rights and privileges of members and of the House as an institution.

And you cited, with approval, these words from former speaker Fraser:

...we are a parliamentary democracy, not a so-called executive democracy, nor a so-called administrative democracy.

The last quote is from your ruling of December 12, 2012, which bears directly on the matter at hand. In that ruling, Mr. Speaker, you dealt with an objection raised by the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons to, inter alia, my presentation of amendments at report stage. The hon. government House leader presented a proposal that all my amendments at report stage should be grouped and one motion selected as a “test motion”, and only if the test motion was adopted would any of the other amendments be put to the House.

Your ruling was clear, Mr. Speaker. You cited House of Commons Procedure and Practice at page 250, which states:

[I]t remains true that parliamentary procedure is intended to ensure that there is a balance between the government's need to get its business through the House, and the opposition's responsibility to debate that business without completely immobilizing the proceedings of the House.

And you added:

The underlying principles these citations express are the cornerstones of our parliamentary system. They enshrine the ancient democratic tradition of allowing the minority to voice its views and opinions in the public square and, in counterpoint, of allowing the majority to put its legislative program before Parliament and have it voted upon.

You ruled then, Mr. Speaker, that my amendments at report stage on Bill C-45 could stand and be put to a vote in the House. You also set out some circumstances that would provide a potential procedure to provide me and other members in my position with a fair and satisfactory alternative to amendments at report stage.

In my view, the government House leader is now attempting to do indirectly that which he could not do directly. It puts me in mind of the finding of Mr. Justice Dickson in that landmark Supreme Court case of Amax Potash, in which Mr. Dickson said:

To allow moneys collected under compulsion, pursuant to an ultra vires statute, to be retained would be tantamount to allowing the provincial Legislature to do indirectly what it could not do directly, and by covert means to impose illegal burdens.

I again underline that as the hon. House leader of the official opposition has put before us, the actions of the finance committee were ultra vires, and the whole effort here is to do indirectly what it could not do directly. I am speaking of the Conservative Party's efforts to suppress the rights of minority members.

It offends principles of fairness to use the superior clout and power of a majority government to crush the few procedures found within our rules and traditions to which I, as an individual member, have a right to recourse. It is clear that the effort being made by the finance committee on Bill C-60 is a continuation of the strategy-by-stealth of the government House leader's to foreclose the democratic rights of members, which was attempted in November of last year.

For the remainder of my argument, I would like to canvass two areas of facts that are relevant to the specifics of the question before you, Mr. Speaker. First, was the procedure adopted by the finance committee in conformity with your ruling of December 12, 2012? Second, have the amendments I have put forward in the 41st Parliament offended the rules by failing the tests of “repetition, frivolity, vexatiousness and unnecessary prolongation of report stage”?

Dealing with the second point first, I have moved amendments at report stage on the following bills, and I will state how many amendments per bill: Bill C-10, 36 amendments; Bill C-11, 11 amendments; Bill C-13, one amendment; Bill C-18, three amendments; Bill C-19, three amendments; Bill C-31, 23 amendments; Bill C-316, five amendments; Bill C-38, 320 amendments; Bill C-37, one amendment; Bill C-43, 21 amendments; and Bill C-45, 82 amendments.

What is immediately obvious is that the number of my amendments was directly proportionate to the legislation proposed by the government. Only on the two omnibus budget bills, Bill C-45 and Bill C-38, and the omnibus crime bill, Bill C-10, did I propose a relatively large number of amendments. There were many amendments, because the omnibus bills involved changes to multiple laws in a dramatic and transformative fashion. The amendments I proposed were all serious; none were frivolous. They were not of the kind, for example, put forward by the opposition of the day on the Nisga'a treaty, in which multiple amendments were mere changes of punctuation with the goal being slowing passage of the Nisga'a treaty.

The amendments I have put forward have even gained favourable commentary from some government members. On Bill C-31, the hon. Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism said, “I appreciate the member's evident concern”, speaking of me as the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, “and the fact that she takes the deliberative legislative process very seriously”.

On Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act, the hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages said, “I compliment her for her substantive approach to this legislation”.

On Bill C-43, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism stated:

I commend the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her constant due diligence. I know it is a particular challenge to effectively be an independent member and yet participate in an informed way in debates on virtually all bills in the House. We all admire her for that even if I do not agree with the substance of her intervention here.

In summary, the amendments I have put forward in the 41st Parliament have never been frivolous. Were they designed to slow passage? Not at all. Even on the day we began the marathon session of votes on the amendments to Bill C-38, I approached the Prime Minister personally and asked if any compromise were possible. I told him I would be at his disposal, that if one or two amendments might pass, perhaps the rest could be withdrawn, and that I was open to suggestion.

My goal throughout was serious and grounded in principle. My constituents care about these issues and these bills. I am working tirelessly in their interest. I have never engaged in preparing and presenting amendments for the sake of, as the government House leader has suggested, political games or delay for the sake of delay.

Having worked in the Mulroney government and in public policy work in Ottawa dealing with federal governments, federal ministers and federal laws since 1978, I have personal experience with what used to be the normal approach to legislating in the Parliament of Canada. This particular administration is the only one in our history to enforce rigid discipline on its members in legislative committees. It is the first administration in Canadian history to resist any changes in its legislative proposals from first reading to royal assent. Even the errors that are discovered prior to passage are protected from amendment until subsequent bills correct earlier drafting errors.

Worsening this abuse of democratic process, virtually every bill in the 41st Parliament has been subject to time allocation. If time allocation were not applied, in the normal round of debates, eventually members in my situation, who are seen as independent for my rights and privileges, although I sit here as a Green Party member, would be recognized and would participate in the debates. However, due to time allocation, there is never an opportunity to speak at second reading, report stage or third reading. With time allocation, there is never an opportunity for members in my position to make a speech unless another party cedes a speaking slot.

As a matter of practical reality, the only way to have a speaking opportunity in such time-constrained circumstances is to have amendments tabled at report stage. This approach of the current Conservative administration of rejecting any and all amendments, while simultaneously abbreviating debate opportunities, is a perversion of Westminster parliamentary tradition. It is a new and hyper-partisan approach to the legislative process.

As a member of Parliament, I believe it is my duty to work to resist this new, contemptuous approach to legislating. The ability to table amendments at report stage and to offer the entire House an opportunity to improve bills before third reading is even more critical when the legislative committee process has ceased to function as it did in all the time of all the speakers before you.

Now I turn to the question, Mr. Speaker, of how the finance committee applied the suggestions contained in your ruling of December 12, 2012. I note that the chair of the finance committee is never anything but personally fair, and I mean nothing personal against all members of the finance committee. I assume that this entire stratagem emerged elsewhere than from the members of the finance committee themselves.

I note that you suggested, Mr. Speaker, that there are “opportunities and mechanisms that are at the House's disposal to resolve these issues to the satisfaction of all members” in a “manner that would balance the rights of all members” and that “...members need only to remember that there are several precedents where independent members were made members of standing committees”. Those are all quotes from your ruling in December.

Finally, you suggested this:

Were a satisfactory mechanism found that would afford independent members an opportunity to move motions to move bills in committee, the Chair has no doubt that its report stage selection process would adapt to the new reality.

From these comments it is clear that your direction suggests that an effort might be made to engage members with rights of independents to enter into a discussion about how arrangements could be reached that would be, in fact, satisfactory. To be “to the satisfaction of all members”, your ruling implicitly requires that the suggested opportunities and mechanisms be discussed and accepted by all concerned. Further, you suggested that temporary membership was possible and that members should be able to “move motions”.

None of that occurred. I am attaching a written copy of all the correspondence between me and the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, which I will provide to the table. As you will see, there was no discussion or offer of co-operation. The “invitation” contained in a letter of May 7, 2013 left no room for discussion. The attached motion of the committee was supported only by the Conservative members of the finance committee but not by the official opposition or the Liberal Party members.

The letter, and particularly the motion itself, had the tone of a unilateral ultimatum. My response was to ask for temporary committee membership for the duration of clause-by-clause review. This request was rejected in the letter of May 24, 2013.

As the various sections of Bill C-60 had been distributed among several committees, I attempted to attend all the hearings relative to my amendments. However, committees were meeting at the same time in different locations throughout the parliamentary precinct making it impossible to get to each one of them. I did attend meetings of the industry, finance and the foreign affairs committees prior to clause-by-clause study. I asked for permission to ask witnesses questions and was denied in the finance and foreign affairs committees. I was allowed a three-minute opportunity to pose questions in the industry committee. To be blunt, my opportunities were not close to equivalent to the members of those committees.

On Monday, May 27, 2013 as requested by the finance committee, I complied with the committee and attempted to co-operate. I submitted my amendments and attended clause-by-clause study throughout the meeting of the committee on Tuesday, May 28. I asked for time to present my amendments. There were 11 in total. I was given half as much time as my colleague from the Bloc Québécois. I was allowed one minute per amendment. He was allowed two minutes per amendment. I have attached copies of the Hansard from all of these discussions to abbreviate the recitation of the facts.

I prefaced my presentation of amendments with a statement that I had not asked for this opportunity nor invitation and that while I was attempting to co-operate, it was without prejudice to my rights to submit amendments at report stage. Each time I was given the floor for 60 seconds, I repeated that my participation was without prejudice to my rights to present amendments at report stage, when I had the right to move my own amendments, speak to my own amendments, and answer questions about my amendments. At report stage, I have the right to vote on my amendments.

I also supported the point made by the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park that inviting independent members to committee, in her words, “does not conform with parliamentary procedure in that only the House of Commons can appoint committee members”.

I noted that I did not have an equal opportunity to present my amendments. This observation was compounded as we went through clause-by-clause study.

On two occasions, members of the committee suggested amendments to my amendments. I was not allowed to comment on those suggestions. On one occasion, a member of the government benches disagreed with a point I made, but I was not allowed to reply. On another occasion, the NDP members misunderstood the impact of my amendment, but I was not allowed to explain. I was not allowed to move my amendments. The motions were deemed moved. I was not allowed to vote on my amendments. As noted, I was not allowed even the ability to participate in discussions about my amendments.

There is no way the word “satisfactory” can be so twisted of meaning as to apply to the set of circumstances to which I was required to submit. It is a principle of fairness and natural justice that an opportunity that cannot be used is no opportunity at all.

When one considers the circumstances in which speakers have ruled that members did not have an adequate opportunity to submit their amendments, it is clear that this imposed process before the Standing Committee on Finance falls far short of the mark.

For example, in 2001, Speaker Milliken ruled that where a member was on two committees and had difficulty getting to the meeting, he could move amendments at report stage. Speaker Milliken wrote that:

...because...the member maintains that he sits on two committees, both of which were seized with bills at the same time, and therefore had difficulty in moving his amendments, the Chair will give the benefit of the doubt to the member on this occasion.

In a situation where a member of a recognized parliamentary party attended the clause-by-clause consideration at the committee but was not an official member of the committee, Speaker Milliken allowed that member's amendments to be presented at report stage. He noted:

Of course, the Chair recognizes that our parliamentary system is party driven and the positions of the parties are brought forward to committees through its officially designated members. The Chair also recognizes that some members may want to act on their own.

Underscoring this, what an example: a member of a recognized party with rights to participate in standing committees chose to be in the meetings, in clause-by-clause study, and could have handed that member's amendments to another member of his party and ask that they be submitted, but the Speaker of the House supported the right of that member to amendments at report stage because he was not a committee member. I was a long, long way from the rights of that member of a recognized political party sitting in that committee back in 2003 when Speaker Milliken allowed that member's amendments at report stage.

The right of a member to actually move the amendments at committee cannot be perverted through the expedient measure, imposed by a majority party, of demanding all amendments of an independent member be submitted, denying that member the right to move the amendment, speak to the amendment, other than in an inadequate perfunctory fashion, debate or defend the amendment, giving that member no opportunity to speak to other amendments and denying the member any chance to vote on his or her motion.

There may well be some way to accommodate members of Parliament in my position, but clearly, this experiment on Bill C-60 at clause-by-clause consideration in the finance committee was not acceptable. To accept it now, and disallow rights of members of Parliament in the position of independents to submit amendments at report stage, will be to create a precedent that fundamentally abuses our foundational principles of Westminster parliamentary democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I urge you to find in favour of the point of order put forward by the hon. House leader for the official opposition and to set aside the treatment of me and the member from the Bloc Québécois and allow us to submit amendments, move amendments, debate our amendments and vote on them on Bill C-60 at report stage.

Fair Rail Freight Service Act

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

This is actually quite insulting, and most of all, undemocratic. The Conservatives are forcing us to sit until midnight from Monday to Thursday, and yet this makes the 37th time we have a time allocation motion. Talk about mixed messages.

We want to discuss the issues, but the government limits the time for debate again and again. In addition, these are badly thought-out bills riddled with flaws. I will list them a little later in my speech.

This has been an ongoing trend with the Conservatives since they came into office. I am specifically thinking of omnibus Bills C-38, C-45 and C-60.

I speak of the Conservatives' incompetence because they are bringing forward bills full of flaws and weaknesses. They are not holding proper consultations. In committee, recommendations from many of the witnesses are rejected out of hand, as are the amendments proposed by the NDP, or anyone else for that matter.

They realized that Bill C-38 was flawed. Then they made hasty additions to Bill C-45 to rectify the other bill they had just introduced.

This makes no sense at all. It lacks credibility. It shows a lack of respect for the democratic process, for the people who were consulted and for those who were not. It shows contempt for the elected officials who serve the people who rely on them to make decisions. We cannot make good decisions because we cannot have a debate and carefully examine everything that should be considered. So yes, it is insulting and an outrage.

The official opposition will support Bill C-52 because it is, finally, a first attempt at establishing the right to service agreements between rail companies and shippers.

This is the first step that shippers have been waiting for for decades. It also establishes an arbitration process, led by the Canadian Transportation Agency, to impose penalties in the event negotiations fail and for violations of arbitration decisions. There are therefore constructive, positive elements, but there are also a number of elements that shippers and the official opposition were calling for but that were rejected.

Four NDP members proposed amendments, based on recommendations from shippers. Those members were the transport critic, the member for Trinity—Spadina; the deputy critic, the member for Trois-Rivières; the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and the member for York South—Weston.

What were those amendments and recommendations? I will explain them. They were not that complicated, and they would have really helped shippers.

We recommended including details about the service agreements. It seems to me that service agreements should, at the very least, be signed and contain details. I do not understand why that was rejected. We asked that the term “operational” be deleted because it would limit the ability to negotiate and arbitrate service agreements. Again, that seems to go without saying. It does not make much sense to limit the measure we are trying to implement. We wanted to include a dispute resolution mechanism in service agreements for breach of contract. We also asked to limit the ability of railway companies to levy penalties and charges that are not in the service agreement.

The rates are already exorbitant and the railway companies are abusing their power. Since there are only two main companies, there is a quasi-monopoly when it comes to shipping freight. The rates being charged to the shippers are too high. They prevent the entrepreneurs and the shippers from being competitive on the international market. We cannot even limit the capacity of the rail carriers to charge penalties that are not included in the service agreement. Nothing good will come of that either.

We proposed limiting arbitration when service agreement negotiations break off and issues are raised by the shipper. The last amendment sought to limit the capacity of rail carriers to raise network-related problems during arbitration.

All these amendments could have improved Bill C-52, but they were not considered. They were completely rejected.

Again, we are here to let the House know that people are not happy about this.The bill has other flaws. What about lost revenue. The Conservatives claim they want to strengthen the economy, but they are diminishing the capacity of the regions to prop up their regional economy, given that the affected sectors are the farming, forestry, mining, manufacturing and natural resources sectors. Most of these sectors are in remote regions.

The Conservatives are contradicting themselves again. They would have us believe that their position and their bills are best, but then they sabotage everything they are trying to do by not taking the time to do proper research. They do not take the time to consult the experts in the areas affected by their bills. That is part of the incompetence that we are talking about here.

Shippers are currently paying the price of service disruptions, damage to their crops and service delays by railways. What is more, they have no other option. As many of my colleagues have said, 70% of surface goods are moved by rail in Canada, and 80% of these shippers are not satisfied with the service they received. That is serious. That means that service is considered to be poor in four out of five cases.

That is why these types of agreements needed to be made after all these years. However, now that they are finally being made, they are more negative than positive. The money from the $100,000 penalties imposed on railway companies under this bill is not used to compensate shippers. Instead, it goes to the federal government. It really should be given to shippers who create jobs and who have to pay late fees and fees for services that the railways failed to provide.

This money is being sent to the wrong place. What is more, these penalties do not really act as a deterrent since we know that companies such as CN are making $2.7 billion in profit a year.

In short, we are going to allow this bill to move forward, but it has many shortcomings. We must listen to experts on this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. I also want to thank my colleague from Trinity—Spadina for her work as our transportation critic, for her tireless work with a community that is invested in seeing improvements to the Transportation Act and for her efforts to improve the bill.

Bill C-52 would amend the Canada Transportation Act. It is a bill that is long overdue.

Rail transportation is the backbone of the Canadian economy. It is in the DNA of our history, and it is something that touches a huge part of our economy. More than 70% of all surface goods in Canada are shipped by rail. We are a vast country and a country that is open to the world. It is very export oriented, and having good transportation networks is absolutely fundamental.

Many of us are familiar with the railway industry. I know that in my family, my grandfather, my husband and my mother all worked in the railway sector. It is part of our country, part of our history and part of our current economy. It touches so many Canadians.

What we have been finding through the study on the bill and leading up to the bill is that 80% of service commitments for agricultural rail customers, which means that they deal with food, feed and farm materials, are not met by the railway companies. There are serious delays, insufficient numbers of rail cars, et cetera. A rail freight service review found that 80% of shippers were not satisfied with the service they received.

What is the root of the problem? One would think that after a couple of centuries, we would be getting our rail service right, but sometimes when governments rush to fix one problem, they create other problems. Sometimes when governments have ideological blinders on, they are wilfully blind to the problems they are creating.

In 1995, the Liberals were in a rush to show that they were jumping on board the privatization bandwagon. They wanted to prove to the world that they could privatize with the best of them. One of the companies they rushed to privatize was CN. They privatized the company, CN. They privatized the tracks. What they forgot to do was put in any safeguards for Canadians, safeguards for shippers and safeguards for our passenger rail service in terms of access to the railway tracks. They basically turned it over to the private sector.

CN is doing very well. It made a profit of $2.7 billion. Bravo. It is doing well. It was just announced this week that the CEO made a salary of $48 million. I am sure he worked hard for every single penny of it.

The trouble is that these ideological decisions create problems. It was the Liberals in 1995 that unleashed this, and frankly, neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives after them, for almost 20 years, have done anything to fix the problems until this bill. It is with insufficient measures that they are trying to address the problems.

Let me say up front that this is a bill we will be supporting at report stage and third reading, but it is a weak bill. It is a bill that does not do the job Canadians really need it to do.

The bill would give rail freight customers or shippers the right to service agreements with rail companies. It is shocking that they have not had this before now, especially with the two majors, CN and CP. It also puts in place an arbitration process, led by the Canadian Transportation Agency, in cases of failed negotiations or where there are penalties for violating the results of arbitration.

This is positive. Canadians deserve fair and reliable freight services. This is obvious and logical.

Shippers pay good money, but they need a stronger position vis-à-vis the two main companies that form a duopoly. Together they have a kind of two-party monopoly. Their power is only partially addressed by Bill C-52.

There were recommendations by the shipping community at the committee stage that were sensible, practical and modest, yet the Conservatives ruled them out of hand with no serious consideration.

As the official opposition finance critic, I certainly know this. With every budget bill we have massive omnibus budget bills. We have been dealing with another one this week, Bill C-60, which again, is an amalgamation of all kinds of changes to different laws, many that have nothing to do with finance and budgets. We have seen that they never accept one amendment to any of their budget implementation legislation. Experts in their fields have testified at the finance committee that the government will have problems if it bullies ahead with certain changes, such as getting rid of the inspector general of CSIS. The expert who helped set up CSIS told us that this would cause problems, but it did not matter. The Conservatives are more expert than the experts, and they went ahead and made the changes anyway.

In this case, they heard expert testimony about why certain changes should be made. However, the Conservatives gave them no serious consideration. They rejected the changes out of hand, which is a bit sad, because this House ought to be about discussion, debate, learning, and ultimately, compromise to get the best laws possible for Canadians.

The bill needs further improvement. The NDP will continue to work with businesses and shippers across the country to improve this legislation and to tackle the issue of uncompetitive freight rates and gouging of the shippers. What we heard from businesses across the country was that they are getting poor customer service. They have had disruptions in rail service and unacceptable service costs. We heard about produce rotting, because it could not be shipped. We heard about lost contracts, because there was no guarantee that the goods could be shipped reliably, which made Canadian businesses unreliable suppliers. We heard about missed connections with ships for travel and shipping. This is a daily occurrence for industries across Canada.

Poor rail services are hurting Canadian exporters, damaging our global competitiveness and costing us jobs, which is a little ironic from a government that talks a lot about jobs. However, when the rubber hits the road, it often misses the train. That is what has been happening with this legislation.

There are a number of key amendments we put forward that the shipping community pushed for. They were championed by the NDP and defeated at committee. Without the rejected amendments, this bill remains only a partial success. Nevertheless, it is still worthy of our support. I want to stress that we are dissatisfied with the outcome. It is not what the shippers really wanted to see. Therefore, there is a need for future strengthening of this legislation.

Sadly, I see that my time is just about up. There is so much else to say. Thanks for the attention of this House. I look forward to the questions of my hon. colleagues.

Standing Committee on Finance

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the point of order raised by the House leader of the official opposition concerns the non-recognized parties, it is appropriate for us to have our say today. I will reserve the right to add more arguments later because we were not aware that this point of order would be raised today.

With great respect, Mr. Speaker, the ruling you made in December 2012 reminds me of what happened in 2001 when your predecessor, Speaker Milliken, also made a ruling that restricted the use of report stage amendments. Between 1968 and 2001, successive Speakers were rather flexible with regard to report stage amendments.

In your ruling, you asked the government to show some openness to participation by members from non-recognized parties or independent members in certain committees, enabling them to propose amendments in committee. There is an important distinction, Mr. Speaker, and you are well placed to be aware of it. The Conservatives also know this, because in 1993 they were a non-recognized party. The NDP knows it too, because the NDP was also a non-recognized party in 1993.

The problem is that the members of this House fall into two categories. In the House we have an opportunity to ask questions and make speeches. We even have some speaking rights, which unfortunately we can no longer exercise because the government has been imposing time allocation motions on nearly all bills. Still, we feel we have proportional equality with our counterparts in the other parties. It is natural that we will be allocated fewer minutes because we have fewer members.

In committee, on the other hand, it is not the same as in the Quebec National Assembly, where the other parties have given the non-recognized parties—such as Québec solidaire and Action démocratique before it—the right to sit on committees, speak at committee meetings and even vote. Here, none of that is possible. I do not want the non-recognized parties to be treated like a ping pong ball in this dispute between the government and the recognized parties in this House. I think we have something to say on the subject.

The existence of the report stage simply allows us to propose the amendments we were unable to propose in committee, the amendments we have not had an opportunity to discuss. It is the only right we have left, Mr. Speaker, and I would like you to preserve it. We must be careful. The government says this is an invitation, but no party in the House has given us anything since May 2, 2011, and we are not asking for any gifts. We do not want additional privileges; we simply want our rights to be respected.

In committee, however, as happened in the committee studying Bill C-60, the only committee where we have been able to propose amendments, we had a few short minutes to do so, but no opportunity to speak at all. We were not allowed to ask questions of the public servants who were present or vote on the amendments we were proposing. If the government thinks it was giving us a gift, it is mistaken.

We want to preserve our rights. Therefore, we must be able to propose an amendment, discuss it, debate it and vote on it, and be aware of all committee activities, as it is possible to do in the House at report stage.

My first request, Mr. Speaker, is that you ensure that the rights of all members of the House are preserved, especially those who are less numerous, like the members of non-recognized parties.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have had the opportunity to go over some of the things that took place in committee, and we should be concerned.

When the government House leader talks about the evolution of process, what we have witnessed is an evolution that takes away the ability of individual members to perform their duties on numerous occasions.

For example, the government House leader could argue that the usage of time allocation is an evolution of process. That evolution that the government has adopted works against, what we would argue, the best interests of Canadians in limiting the opportunity for individuals to express themselves on a wide variety of bills, including Bill C-60.

Let us take a look at what the government has now proposed to do.

The Conservatives are saying that inside the committee they now want to mandate all members of the House, whether they are part of an officially recognized party or not, to bring forward their amendments to the committee well in advance. However, as one can easily imagine by the way the government has managed this evolution of process, the Conservatives are really trying to prevent independent members who are not part of a recognized political party the opportunity to present their amendments at report stage. This raises a whole spectrum of issues that really needs to be addressed.

I am concerned that if the government were trying to demonstrate good will based on a Speaker's ruling, with all due respect, then this should have been was raised at one of the House leader's meetings and received a consensus of support. We have to be very careful when we look at changing rules, which is ultimately what the government House leader has proposed to do. We have to be very careful that there is a consensus from all political entities inside the House to do that. If we take a look at what took place at the committee, members will find that there was not unanimous consent in passing the motion in question, which is important to recognize.

The second issue I would like to raise is the letter that I understand the leader of the Green Party received. Imagine receiving a letter which gives a very clear indication that one has x amount of time to get all of one's information gathered and amendments in place. The letter suggests that must be done by Monday, May 27, at nine o'clock in the morning. Again, I call into question the legitimacy of this.

This issue came up through a point of order by the New Democratic opposition House leader, and there is great merit for that. We will take a look at this matter in more detail and we might want to add further comment on the issue as time progresses.

However, I want to emphasize how important it is when the government House leader makes reference to the evolution of process or rules. Whenever he starts to fantasize or talk about it, in the past, it has not been a positive thing in democracy in the House of Commons.

I raise this issue as a red flag. We need to tread very carefully before making any sort of ruling on that which seeks to deprive individual members, or collective members, the opportunity to do something they have done in the past because the government deems it as not as clean or quick as it would like to see things take place. The Conservatives are bringing in these draconian-type changes or proposals, which are not healthy for democracy in the House of Commons.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a very specific point of order with regard to Bill C-60, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, and the work that was done by the committees that were studying this bill, particularly the finance committee, which invoked some measures we believe are not in order and fell well outside of its mandate.

As some context for those Canadians who are not familiar with Bill C-60, this is another piece of omnibus legislation. We rose earlier on similar points of order with respect to how the bill was handled.

In its nature, being an omnibus bill under the current government's watch, with the expansion of omnibus legislation to include so many different matters, the government has faced a difficulty of its own making in that it is not purely a financial bill and it is not simply a bill to implement the budget; it would do much more. While it has an anti-democratic nature and tone for us, in various ways we have struggled with the ability for members of Parliament to properly study and amend legislation that is so broad.

I wish that you would review the motion adopted by the standing committee on May 7, as well as the proceedings that resulted from this specific motion, and that you rule to determine whether these proceedings were in order or not and whether the committee overstepped its authority when adopting this particular motion. I will refer in detail to what the motion accomplished and how it fell outside of the mandate of the committee.

We raised a very similar point of order, if you will remember, around Bill C-45. That was the second omnibus bill that followed on Bill C-38. We had deep concerns about the fact that the Standing Committee on Finance, during its consideration of that massive omnibus bill, went beyond its mandate and usurped the authority of the House when it invited other standing committees to study particular sections of Bill C-45. On their own mandate they started to carve the bill up and send it out. It then allowed these committees that were studying the bill to move amendments and then saw it as if those amendments had been moved by members of the finance committee.

We argued at the time that this went beyond the mandate and the reference from the House, from you as the Speaker.

A similar argument could be made about Bill C-60. It was introduced on April 29.

On May 7, after the government used time allocation to shut down the debate once again on discussions at second reading, it ended with the passage of the following motion, which stated:

...that Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to [the Standing Committee on Finance].

Hansard on that day of May 7 specifically quotes you as saying:

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

It is pro forma and it is how bills are referred to the committee.

The committee acted outside of its powers and authority, those powers conferred on it by this House, when it adopted a motion on that very same day asking other committees to study sections of the bill, namely the standing committees on industry, science and technology; veterans affairs; human resources, skills and development; the status of persons with disabilities; citizenship and immigration; as well as foreign affairs and international development. That is where the government sought to parse out the bill.

It is very difficult to deal with omnibus legislation that is so obviously varied that it implicates so many different committees. The government has pushed, and I would argue broken the democratic limits of our legislature, by packing so much into these individual bills. In essence it is hiding from Canadians what its agenda is as these bills then come back to the House for one single vote on so many matters. This was something that the Conservatives concerned themselves with greatly when they were in opposition. You have heard me mention many of the quotes from the Prime Minister and various ministers in his cabinet on how much they disliked this tactic when the Liberals used it. It is now a tactic that the Conservatives seem to enjoy using with much relish.

Although I believe the Standing Committee on Finance went beyond its mandate to ask these five other committees to study the bill, this is not the principal concern that I want to raise with you today.

The committee went even further this time in going beyond its mandate, by adopting a motion to allow members of Parliament who are not members of a caucus represented on the committee to file amendments to the bill. It went further by directing that any amendments suggested to the committee would be deemed to be proposed during the clause-by-clause consideration on Bill C-60, even if the member who presented the amendment was not present.

Let us take a moment with this. Out of some seeking of convenience, the committee members passed the motion at their own discretion, not by any power given to them by the House, to allow amendments that came from people who do not sit on the committee, who are not recognized parties in the House. They allowed amendments to suddenly appear and be presented as if they came from somebody on committee. This goes against three fundamental principles that we hold dear in the House.

Only the House can appoint committee members. This is well known. It is done at the beginning of every session when we constitute our committees. No committee can self-appoint members. It has to come from an order in the House.

Only committee members who have been appointed by the House can move a motion. In order to move a motion, a member must be present at the time the motion is moved. We just dealt with a piece of private member's legislation before my point of order. A seconder was missing from her particular seat. The House properly waited until that member took her seat so that she was present. Motions cannot be moved if people are not here.

The rules of committee as established by the House specifically prescribe that members of a committee are designated by the House and cannot include members of a non-recognized party. This is a practice and a procedure we have used for many years. The rules established by the House also specifically prescribe that only a member of a committee can move a motion.

According to O'Brien and Bosc's House of Commons Procedure and Practice:

Only a member of the committee, or his or her designated substitute, may move an amendment or vote on an amendment.

Standing Order No. 119 stipulates that:

Any member of the House who is not a member of a standing, special or legislative committee, may, unless the House or the committee concerned otherwise orders, take part in the public proceedings of the committee, but may not vote or move any motion, nor be part of any quorum.

The O'Brien and Bosc text, on page 1019, states:

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 status of member of a committee is accorded to Members of the House of Commons who belong officially to that committee. This status allows them to participate fully in their committee's proceedings: members may move motions, vote and be counted for purposes of a quorum.

The Speaker has ruled that this is a fundamental right of the House. It cannot be taken away. A committee simply cannot move a motion to take such a power away from the House. I am quoting now:

The committees themselves have no powers at all in this regard.

I would like at this point to mention your ruling, Mr. Speaker, from last December. You will recall that at the time, we moved our point of order regarding the last omnibus bill, Bill C-45, specifically with respect to the role and rights of independent members in the context of report stage.

The government House leader argued that the current process by which independent members are not allowed to present motions at committee means that at report stage of bills, a single independent member has the ability, in his words, “to hold the House hostage in a voting marathon”, as if voting were somehow connected to a hostage-taking, by submitting numerous report stage amendments.

In response, Mr. Speaker, you suggested that members may try to find ways to accommodate independent members at committee in order to allow them to present motions. You said the following:

Were a satisfactory mechanism found that would afford independent members an opportunity to move motions to move bills in committee, the Chair has no doubt that its report stage selection process would adapt to the new reality.

I understand that the motion adopted for Bill C-60 at committee was somehow a response to this ruling and an attempt by the Conservative Party to cut short the proceedings at report stage. However, I believe that the Conservatives fundamentally misinterpreted your ruling to in fact allow independent members to move motions to amend bills at committees. The Conservatives should have, and must have, sought agreement of the House to allow the members to sit on that committee. That is a power they cannot take away simply by a motion at committee. Indeed, it is from the House that committees derive this power. Committees on their own do not have absolute powers.

While committees are often quoted as being masters of their own fate, I will cite from O'Brien and Bosc at page 1047:

The concept refers to the freedom committees normally have to organize their work as they see fit and the option they have of defining, on their own, certain rules of procedure that facilitate their proceedings.

A second quote, on page 1048 of O'Brien and Bosc, states:

These freedoms are not, however, total or absolute.... committees are creatures of the House. This means that they have no independent existence and are not permitted to take action unless they have been authorized/empowered to do so by the House.

A second quote on that same page states:

...committees are free to organize their proceedings as they see fit.... committees may adopt procedural rules to govern...but only to the extent the House does not prescribe anything specific.

Members of a committee, and only members of a committee, as well as associate members when they replace those members, are able to attend the committee and thus move a motion at committee.

O'Brien and Bosc further tells us that:

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

The rules also clearly state that a member must be present for the motion. This is a fact. We have never moved away from this fact or this rule or procedure. To suddenly invent a process by which a motion can be moved but the member may be absent contravenes the basic tenets of democracy and representation. We could suddenly have votes where people just call in and speak their intentions rather than be here themselves.

Where a notice of motion has been given, the Speaker will first ensure that the Member wishes to proceed with the moving of the motion. If the sponsor of a motion chooses not to proceed (either by not being present or by being present but declining to move the motion), then the motion is not proceeded with....

This has happened many times in the House. We have seen private member's bills that members chose not to move. They either made themselves absent from the House or they remained in their seats and the motion was not moved forward. Nobody else can do it on their behalf. No one can simply come in and say, “The member intended to be here, but is not. Please allow the member's private member's bill or motion to be considered”.

There is a precedent for a Speaker overruling a committee matter, because sometimes Speakers, often, and I think for good reason, have been loath to involve themselves in committee business.

I quote from O'Brien and Bosc, page 775:

Since a committee may appeal the decision of its Chair and reverse that decision, it may happen that a committee will report a bill with amendments that were initially ruled out of order by the Chair. The admissibility of those amendments, and of any other amendments made by a committee, may therefore be challenged on procedural grounds when the House resumes its consideration of the bill at report stage. The admissibility of the amendments is then determined by the Speaker of the House, whether in response to a point of order or on his or her own initiative.

Amendments were moved with no member present who was actually intent on moving that motion. People were made members of the committee, one assumes, by a motion the committee did not have the power to designate.

For the House to now consider, at report stage, Bill C-60, with these amendments in place, is strictly out of order. It is the proper role of the Speaker of the House to intervene to say that things were done improperly and have to be done right.

In 2007, a point of order was raised in the House dealing with the admissibility of three amendments contained in a bill at report stage from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Speaker Milliken ruled two of the amendments out of order, finding that they imported into the bill concepts and terms not present in the bill and were therefore beyond the scope of the bill.

I quote from Speaker Milliken's ruling on February 27, 2007:

...the Speaker does not intervene on matters upon which committees are competent to take decisions. However, in cases where a committee has exceeded its authority, particularly in relation to bills, the Speaker has been called upon to deal with such matters after a report has been presented to the House.

That has happened here today.

In terms of amendments adopted by committees on bills, if they were judged to be inadmissible by the Speaker, those amendments would be struck from the bill as amended because the committee did not have the authority to adopt such provisions.

This means there exists a precedent for the Speaker rejecting amendments to a bill and the process by which it was there.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to rule and review the motion adopted by the standing committee on May 7, 2013, as well as the proceedings that resulted from that motion, and that you rule to determine whether these proceedings were in order and whether the committee overstepped its authority when it adopted the motion.

The House of Commons and Parliament, and democracy in general, have suffered much abuse under this tactic and use of omnibus legislation. We have presented ourselves many times in defence of the institution and the right of members to speak and the people we represent to clearly understand the legislation the government is attempting to move.

The abuse of omnibus legislation has been a decision by the government. The difficulty it is having in the way amendments are moved and the process by which a bill goes through are of its own making, and it has only itself to blame.

A committee cannot take powers the House did not give it. Simply accepting motions from members who are not part of a committee and are not present to move the motion, contravenes the basic tenets of this place. The presence and acknowledged presence of a standing member of any of these committees is required—it is a basic, fundamental requirement—for a motion to proceed. These motions were considered improperly. We ask that you rule in this matter.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions.

The first petition is primarily from residents of the Ottawa area and deals with the subject of the CBC, our national public broadcaster.

The petitioners are calling for stable, long-term and predictable funding and the independence of the CBC. The petition is particularly timely, given the amendments to the sections of Bill C-60 which would affect crown corporations.

Finance

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 19th report of the Standing Committee on Finance in relation to Bill C-60, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures.

The committee has studied the bill and has agreed to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

Canada Post

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I hear that Canada Post is an arm's-length crown corporation and the government cannot do anything about it, I think it is a bit of a crock. In June 2011, the government did not hesitate to interfere by introducing legislation forcing people back to work when the strike had not even begun. On Bill C-60, the Conservatives would not hesitate to interfere in the negotiations; they have given themselves that authority.

Does the gentleman across the way think that if the managers had something owed to them that they would wait a year and a half before it was paid to them? Does he think that the only shareholder, the government, would wait a year and a half before receiving its dividend that it receives annually? Would it wait that long? I do not think so. Therefore, why would they then be treating their employees and their retired employees with such disdain?

Let us hustle a bit here and respect the Supreme Court. Do not negotiate, as there is no negotiation here. It is settled. The Supreme Court decided, so do what is right and pay these people their due.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is fitting that I am speaking to this topic today because this morning I was able to meet with the Association of Public Service Alliance Retirees; its president, Mr. Chevalier; and its executive committee. They wanted to discuss two or three issues, and the government should be worried about one in particular.

In November 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada made a unanimous ruling on pay equity and ordered Canada Post to compensate its employees. Of the slightly more than 6,000 employees who were affected, the majority are women and 80% are now retired. What is worse, this morning members of the Association of Public Service Alliance Retirees told me that 28 of those people are now deceased. There may be more, but the members know that 28 of them have died.

The Supreme Court handed down its ruling a year and a half ago and Canada Post still has not respected the unanimous decision of the highest court in the land.

In 2005, Canada Post set $50 million aside in case it might lose. It lost after a lengthy battle. These people, 80% of whom are retired, live on an income averaging less than $20,000 and the money they are owed would help them a great deal. It would probably add $100 to $150 a month to their pension.

A year and a half after a unanimous Supreme Court decision, Canada Post, backed by the government it seems, refuses to pay what it owes these people. It makes no sense.

I asked the question in April and in response I was told that Canada Post is an independent corporation that is responsible for its own affairs, especially when it comes to human resource management.

I am sorry, but Canada Post has only one shareholder and that is the Government of Canada. When it came to interfering in Canada Post's business in June of 2011, the government did not hesitate to introduce a bill in the House to force the employees back to work before the strike even began. We all remember that saga.

In Bill C-60, which is currently at committee stage, the government also gives itself the right to intervene in collective bargaining processes.

The government cannot tell us that Canada Post is an independent corporation that is responsible for its own affairs when it comes to labour relations and then turn around and say that it can interfere whenever it wants to.

Why does the government not want to interfere to force Canada Post to pay its employees what it owes them, as per the Supreme Court's decision?

Who does Canada Post want to appeal to now? It is trying to negotiate with the unions and the courts to pay less interest than it owes. A Supreme Court judgment cannot be appealed before lower courts. If Canada Post wants to appeal the Supreme Court's decision, it should bring its case before Parliament, where its appeal will be denied rather quickly. Canada Post has to pay that money to over 6,000 current employees and former employees who are now retired. It is not doing so.

As I said the other day, it very unlikely that the bigwigs and managers at Canada Post would agree to wait a year before getting what they were owed.

I hope that the government will take action and force Canada Post to abide by the Supreme Court's decision.

The Canadian Museum of History Act

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the public trust. When we are dealing with sensitive issues like the telling of our story and the mandate of a museum, which has been the most popular and well-attended museum in the national capital region with professionals who worked there for years and years to build up its reputation not just in Canada but internationally, it suggests that if the Conservatives are to make these changes, they better have some good reasons which would benefit all Canadians.

I bring up these issues because we see time and time again a government that lacks transparency and has no commitment to accountability. I mean, the Conservatives have lost $3.1 billion. It has fallen away somewhere and they cannot seem to find it.

I also want to talk about the way in which the bill came about. I see some hon. members across the way shaking their heads because they do not like the truth about how they spin Canadians.

We in the heritage committee were sent on a journey to study how best to celebrate Canada's 150th birthday. We interviewed countless Canadians. They said many interesting things, but never did they say that we needed to change the name of the Museum of Civilization. No one came to us and said, “Folks, you really do this. There's a real problem here”. No one ever said that, not once.

However, we did hear from many people who came before our committee from small archives and museums across the country. They said that if the government did not do something to help them out, that their archives and museums were on the verge of dying. Their curatorial workers are getting older, and the average age is well into the fifties, but because of deep cuts that the Conservative government has made to cultural industries in our country, and its contempt for the independence of third party agencies, fewer young people are going into this sector.

Now the Conservatives are telling Canadians that they are going to share this vast treasure trove of historical artifacts with all the little museums and archives across the country, but none of them have the capacity to receive that stuff. Not only that, there is no cost attached to the bill. This from the prudently fiscal government, but, oh yes, it lost $3.1 billion. I do not know if I mentioned that.

However, all of a sudden, out of thin air, the Minister of Canadian Heritage said that he found $25 million in the Department of Heritage to spend on this museum. He said that it was not coming from any other program and no other program was going to suffer. However, he does not tell us where the heck the money was in the first place. Not one time have we actually had accountability and transparency on Bill C-49.

When we start to talk about bills, especially ones that change the narrative or at least try to describe it in a different way, we want to consult with Canadians. That is what the heritage committee is supposed to do and, in fact, we did. Then, the minister, while riding his motorcycle, had a vision. His vision was to change the name and the mandate of the Museum of Civilization. Then he doubled back, maybe he popped a wheelie, drove back to Ottawa and announced that the government was changing the name of the Museum of Civilization. He announced how much money the government would spend on it. Then, after that, he proceeded to public consultation. I know I am still kind of new here, but that is a little on the backward side.

The entire $25 million one-time contribution comes directly out of the Canadian Heritage budget, but the minister has refused to explain where exactly the money comes from or what heritage programs will lose funds to finance the contribution.

This is the game of deception the government is now famous for. The Conservatives cannot find $3.1 billion. It is lost. No one can say where it is.

This is a government that guts environmental protection of our lakes, rivers and streams but spends millions on a fake lake in Toronto. It refused to support the NDP's national housing strategy, but spent millions on gazebos in Muskoka to help re-elect one of its vulnerable ministers.

In fact, the minister responsible for housing told Canadians that the issue of affordable housing had been solved, since interest rates are at historic lows and Canadians can now buy houses. This shows a complete lack of understanding of the reality of life for folks who live in Toronto, who live in my riding of Davenport, who struggle day in and day out to afford their apartments, their homes. Families cannot find suitable and affordable housing. Seniors are barely hanging on in their homes, and young people are facing an incredibly unstable future without access to full-time, stable jobs.

The government decided the change the name of the museum at a cost of $500,000. It added about $400,000 more for its bogus consultation, which happened after the fact. That is why I call it bogus. It had already made its decision. It already knew exactly what it was doing. The plan was in the minister's motorcycle satchel.

This is how things are supposed to work in the House of Commons when it is not dominated by the anti-democratic reflexes of the government. We consult Canadians. We craft legislation based on the consultation. We table legislation in the House, debate it and finally, if the legislation passes, earmark the money and spend it on the program.

The government says it is going to spend $25 million to narrow the mandate and change the name of the Museum of Civilization. It says that the money is just lying around. Where was it all this time? It spent almost $1 million on a party and a consultation process, but the consultation came after the decision had already been made. This is an insult to Canadians. However, this is what we have come to expect from Conservatives.

In Davenport, for example, and this is on the point of consultation and transparency, people are only too familiar with this lack of consultation. For 50 years after a nuclear fuel processing facility had been operating in the riding, no one who lives near it knew what was going on there. The company's operating licence, however, clearly stated that it must keep the residents informed. It did not, and the government is okay with that.

That is why Conservatives have refused my request, on behalf of the community, to reopen the licence to give residents their lawful opportunity to participate in the process of public information.

Cultural communities and citizens of varied backgrounds came to us at the heritage committee. They talked about their stories and their concern about a dominant culture in which there is no space for them to talk about their issues and their history.

With its one-sided and triumphalist approach, the museum of history could run the risk of presenting a monolithic vision of Canadian history, unrepresentative of its diversity. This is particularly of concern to me. More than half of all residents of Toronto were not born in Canada. Their stories, their struggles, their triumphs, their hopes and their fears are the lifeblood that courses through the veins of Toronto. Immigrants' stories are heroic stories.

Recently I had the honour of being present at a ceremony marking 60 years of Portuguese immigration to Canada. The history of the Portuguese in Canada, particularly, in Toronto, is incredible. It is built on hard work, fidelity to family, love of home country, and a deep faith and commitment to Canada. It is a story of the collective achievements of a community, many members of which came to Canada with very little and contributed so much.

Will this story be told in Canada's museum of history? Will the great stories of Canada's multinational, multi-ethnic immigrant community have a place there? Will it be up to the whim of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages and his buddies on the board?

There are many stories and many parts of our history that many Canadians have little trust the government would be interested in presenting at this history museum.

The fact that we are even discussing whether the Conservatives would be interested in them underlines the real problem of independence. We know already that the Conservatives have tried time and again to interfere with the independence of cultural agencies.

We have great stories. We have troubling stories too. We have stories of the history of feminism in Canada, for example. We have the tragic story of the Komagata Maru. We have the On to Ottawa Trek. We have the story of Norman Bethune, for example; the Riel rebellion; the story of co-operatives in Canada, which is a phenomenal story; and of course, the story of the first peoples of Canada.

There is concern, not just here on this side of the House but across the country, that the government has a very narrow vision of what is Canadian history and that the Conservatives want to prescribe in this new museum a vision of Canadian history that is not the full picture. That is the concern. There is very little the Conservatives have said during this debate to allay the fears of many.

Some people may think that some of these concerns about telling the stories of new Canadians and immigrants are misplaced. However, when we look at the Conservative record on immigration, for example, we have a lot to be concerned about. While the New Democrats want to reunite more families in Canada, the Conservatives' radical overhaul of Canada's immigration system is turning this country into a less welcoming place, making it even harder for families to reunite in Canada with overseas spouses, children, parents and grandparents.

Here is what the Conservatives are asking families to face: waits as long as nine years to reunite with loved ones; a misguided two-year freeze on reunification applications for parents and grandparents; and arbitrary rejection of visitors visas, with no chance for appeal, preventing many family members from attending weddings and even funerals. Meanwhile, instead of welcoming skilled immigrants to address Canada's long-term economic needs, the Conservatives are prioritizing temporary work visas to help big business pay lower wages.

This is no way to build our country or our communities. If we want to grow a 21st century economy, we will need to attract the best and the brightest from around the world. Making family reunification a central priority in our immigration system is one of the ways to go.

This is part of the context in which we are debating this bill. If we do not have a sense that the Conservative government will play a hands-off role in cultural agencies, and if we do not have a sense that it understands the importance of families and family reunification in our immigration system, how can we trust them to allow the full story of who we are as a country to come out in this new formulation of the Museum of Civilization?

The bill would closely follow the Conservative attempt to interfere with history as taught in classrooms, clearly interfering in provincial jurisdiction. We have heard these comments tonight about the apparent lack of attention to history in Canadian schools. Sometimes some of these members should perhaps consider running provincially, because that is a provincial jurisdiction.

This spring, Conservatives on the heritage committee attempted to study history in provincial classroom curricula, focusing on battles in military history.

We understand the need for a balanced rendering of history devoid of any political interference. Too often, though, we have seen the current government reach into cultural institutions and attempt to compromise their independence. In fact, the Conservative cabinet, if Bill C-60 passes, will attempt to dictate rates of pay for non-unionized workers and terms for collective agreements at many cultural agencies, including the CBC and the Museum of Civilization, or as it will soon be called, the museum of Canadian history.

For the Conservatives, it is always a race to the bottom, though, on the environment, on ethics, on transparency in government and, most importantly, on wages.

The government is ideologically committed to pushing wages down, breaking unions and privatizing key cultural institutions. This ideology fails the people of Canada and Toronto and urban workers in cities across the country. Almost 50% of all workers in Toronto cannot find full-time, stable employment. They work part time, freelance, on contract or are self-employed. They have no access to benefits, workplace pensions or job security.

Our cultural institutions are not only the repository, the incubator and the teller of our shared stories. They contribute enormously to our local and national economy, providing employment to hundreds of thousands of Canadians. In fact, the arts and culture sector contributes between $60 billion and $80 billion of GDP to the Canadian economy. However, when key employers, such as the CBC and the NFB, are cut to the bone, life gets much harder for workers in the cultural sector.

We need to frame this debate in the context of other cuts that have happened to cultural agencies. When the government talks about its interest in sharing Canadian history, a community of librarians and archivists right across the country scratch their heads.

Since coming to power, the Conservatives have incessantly targeted Library and Archives Canada, a federal institution and the keeper of our collective memory. They have imposed modifications and irreversible consequences on our knowledge and perception of Canadian history, firing half of Library and Archives Canada digitization staff, cutting staff in charge of document preservation and conservation and eliminating the interlibrary loan program, which provides access for all Canadians to their national library collections.

These are the kinds of cuts that underline the fact that the Conservative government has done the most to prevent access to Canadian history since the $450-million cut to the CBC by the Liberal Party in the nineties.

We need to focus on maintaining the independence of these agencies. We need to stop wasting taxpayers' money. We need to introduce much more transparency so that Canadians understand where the money is coming from and how it is spent and that their history is not going to be dictated by ministers of the Conservative government.

Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member opposite for Western Arctic because it is a question about fairness in the tax system. This bill deals with closing the tax loopholes that people are using to avoid paying taxes, whether they be illegal or very aggressive tax plans. When we talk about fairness, we are talking about fairness with respect to those changes we have made to the tax code, so that the legislative piece ensures everyone is paying their fair share.

On a more broad approach to this question, I am glad the member for Western Arctic is interested in tax fairness because that would mean I can look for that member to stand in favour of our budget implementation bills that move forward on closing tax loopholes. If the member is serious about closing tax loopholes and being fair to all taxpayers, I believe he should be supporting our implementation bills, including Bill C-60 when it comes back to the House.

Finance

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today at the finance committee, we were discussing Bill C-60, which is the first budget implementation act of this government. This legislation includes $18 million for the Canadian Youth Business Foundation, $165 million for Genome Canada, $20 million for the Nature Conservancy of Canada, $30 million for Nunavut Housing, $5 million for aboriginal students through Indspire, $3 million for compassionate care through the Pallium Foundation and $3 million for the CNIB for the national digital hub.

Can the Minister of Finance comment on why it is so important that this Parliament pass these measures?

Bill C-48, Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was going to bring up exactly that same point. I believe the member is talking about Bill C-60. We are going through clause-by-clause study tomorrow and we look forward to having that conversation in the House.

However, I want to note the tax loopholes that the government has consistently closed and the integrity of our tax system has improved immensely since 2006 when we took over government.

Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act

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

Mr. Speaker, can the hon. member for Newton—North Delta explain for me, because I cannot figure it out, what has changed since 2009, when this Parliament and the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations recommended against these broad and flexible ways of short-circuiting public scrutiny and access to review of the regulatory process?

At that time the members of the joint committee said, “What this really means is that it allows rules to be imposed without having to go through the regulatory process”.

This is part and parcel of a number of changes we have seen happening, including in Bill C-60, where there would be intervention at the political level over collective bargaining by crown corporations or through more discretionary powers at the hands of ministers. Slowly but surely, the executive in this country—the Prime Minister's Office, which is subservient to the will of Parliament—will have all the levers of power it needs to rule, with Parliament merely an anachronism.

Government Expenditures

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

Mr. Speaker, with $3 billion unaccounted for and even the Auditor General unable to find it, is that the answer?

Meanwhile, for the third time the Conservatives are forcing a budget bill through Parliament in their sham process. Some committees only have one or two meetings on very complex issues in Bill C-60 that deserve more attention. We had a witness just this morning at the finance committee who asked why he was there and not before HRSDC. Welcome to Conservative Ottawa.

Why do the Conservatives insist on evading parliamentary scrutiny and what do they have against fiscal accountability?

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the motion before us is rather bizarre. As many members have said before me, it is quite surprising that the government is using the excuse of urgency.

The government has imposed closure a record 33 times, as well as restrictions on the time allowed to study bills in committee. With Bill C-60, this same government gave notice of a time allocation motion after only one hour of debate. I did say only one hour of debate. This is the same government that introduced monster omnibus bills because it did not want the committees and parliamentarians to properly study their legislative proposals in good faith.

I am not afraid of hard work. I am a doctor by training and I am used to 12-hour and even 24-hour shifts. It is not pleasant, but you get used to it.

My colleagues and I have not hesitated to stand up to the government and to do our jobs, as was the case with legislation to force Canada Post employees back to work and regarding their working conditions. We stood our ground when necessary.

It is obvious that the Conservatives do not have any respect for democratic institutions. I just mentioned the 33 time allocation motions they have imposed since May 2, 2011. What a sorry record.

The omnibus bills, such as Bills C-38 and C-45, are perfect examples of this. The Conservatives have steamrolled their way through adopting measures that Canadians and parliamentarians did not have the chance to scrutinize.

As everyone knows, the appropriate committees were unable to properly study Bill C-38 because it was not split up. That is disrespectful. With Bill C-45, the Conservatives used a different approach in order to curry favour with the public.

However, I can speak from my experience with the Standing Committee on Health. What a joke. The committee's meeting on Bill C-45 started late because of yet another time allocation motion. We then heard from witnesses and had just one round of questions. It is clear to me that the government did not really want the committees to study the impact of the measures. It just wanted to look better without having to do better. That too shows a lack of respect for our democratic institutions.

I also think that what is happening in committee is not right. Many witnesses take the time to come here to speak to subjects or bills that are important to them. Most of the time, however, their contributions are ignored. It is as though the committees were a waste of time. In any event, the outcome is prepared in advance by the Prime Minister's Office and so are many of the Conservative members' statements.

Yesterday, the House Leader of the Official Opposition said that 99.3% of all amendments proposed by the opposition have been rejected by the government.

This implies that every single one of the bills the government introduces is practically perfect.

In 99.3% of the cases, the government outright rejected all of the testimony from witnesses and experts, all of the comments from the public and all of the amendments proposed during the study of the bill. That is simply impossible.

Based on what we heard from witnesses, and after studying some bills in the Standing Committee on Health, I know that some of these bills could have benefited from the proposed amendments.

The NDP is not afraid of work. The problem is that I am not sure the government wants to extend our hours in order to get more work done. It has not guaranteed that we will be here until the summer recess.

I belong to a party that has the word “democratic” in its name, and I take these issues very seriously. The people of Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert put their trust in me on May 2, 2011, and I am doing my best to represent them.

Canadians sent us here to ask the necessary questions and to implement the best policies and public practices. We think that the government should take action so that we can do our job properly. The Prime Minister is now playing the victim over what happened in the Senate with senators he himself appointed solely to raise money for the Conservative Party of Canada. The Prime Minister is now playing the victim and wondering how this could have happened.

How could his chief of staff give a $90,000 cheque to a senator the Prime Minister himself appointed? How could his chief of staff—who sat right next to him every single day, who knows the government's deepest, darkest secrets and who the Prime Minister put in charge of major trade files and negotiations with other countries—do that?

Of course, the Prime Minister's hands are clean, and he has nothing to say about this. He believes that his hands are so clean that he is not going to answer any questions about it. He is going to South America for trade talks with countries we already have trade deals with.

Parliament should become less irrelevant. We think it is wrong that it ever became irrelevant. When the government is wrong in its treatment and abuse of Canada's Parliament, that affects all Canadians, whatever their political persuasion. We think what the government is doing is fundamentally wrong and that it needs a little adult supervision from time to time to take some of those suggestions and put a little, as we say, water in its wine. The government needs that more than anything.

It has the majority. This is the irony of what the government is doing. In moving more time allocation than any government in history, shutting down debate more than any government in history and relying on the tactics it is using today, it is showing weakness, not strength.

The Conservatives have the numbers to move legislation through if they saw fit, but they do not. They move legislation, they say it is an agenda and they hold up a raft of bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will share my speaking time with my colleague, the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.

I have been given time to speak to this motion. Once again this week, the government is moving to extend our evening sitting hours significantly. It wants Parliament to sit until midnight.

We have to take a close look at this motion because similar motions in the past have often resulted in a shorter parliamentary calendar.

Since the beginning of this discussion, the Conservatives have continually surprised us with messages utterly at odds with what we are used to hearing.

Just like that, the government wants to extend the time we spend in the House. It claims this approach will enable members to debate bills on the order paper in detail and work hard for Canadians.

How ironic. After constantly curtailing debate ever since the last election, the government now says it wants to extend sitting hours to provide opportunities for debate.

Also ironic is the fact that the government has so much to say about democracy despite its unrelenting and unprecedented contempt for our parliamentary bodies.

Such principles were conspicuous by their absence when the government prorogued Parliament for purely partisan reasons, a move that was bad for Canadians.

Let us not forget that the Prime Minister had absolutely no compunction about letting dozens of bills die on the order paper when he wanted to save his government's hide. How can he say that he wants to let bills move through the normal legislative process when his political agenda has been given top priority in the current legislative cycle?

When a government constantly uses adjournment motions as a tactic to limit participation in and duration of debates, that is not democracy. It is exactly the opposite of what has been moved today.

May 8 was the 33rd time the government brought a vote on a time allocation motion that effectively limits the number of MPs who can speak to a given bill.

It sure looks like the Conservatives have been hell-bent on beating their own record for shutting down debate ever since the beginning of this Parliament.

How can the government say that it wants to promote free debate when it holds the record for cutting debate short? Are we supposed to believe that the government really wants to have it both ways?

Nor is it very democratic when the Prime Minister's Office muzzles its own members in their statements in the House.

Personally, neither I nor my colleagues in the official opposition have to get our speeches approved or adjusted to go with the soup of the day. We speak freely, without constraint from our party, but the government members cannot say the same.

How can the Conservatives stand here today and say that they defend democracy when they put gag orders on their own party's statements and speeches in the House?

Working for Canadians does not mean introducing three mammoth bills like Bills C-38, C-45 and C-60, and then watering down debate, limiting discussion and preventing parliamentarians from learning about what is happening in parliamentary committee, as is the case with a typical bill.

How can the Conservatives claim that they want to let the parliamentary process follow its course when they are the first to short-circuit it by forcing the vote on hundreds of measures without allowing representatives to do their work properly?

Never in the history of this country has a government shown such contempt for our institutions. That is why it is becoming difficult today to understand and believe the lines the Conservatives are trying to feed us.

You cannot on the one hand advocate for extending our sitting time to encourage debate, and on the other hand interfere constantly, as the Conservatives have done with complete impunity.

Therefore, we must question the motives behind the government's desire to extend the sitting hours.

If we look at what has happened in the past, we see that, in general, extending the sitting hours allows the party in power to make the parliamentary calendar shorter. Right now, the Conservatives clearly do not have enough credibility for us to believe their intentions and trust them.

We have to wonder whether the government simply wants to be forgotten as quickly as possible over the summer and to have people forget about all the problems that its wilful blindness caused with the temporary foreign worker program.

Yesterday, the government House leader said that he wanted to accelerate his government's economic measures. If he really cares about the economy, how could he let senators make such extravagant expenditures on the backs of taxpayers? The fact is that the government would rather shirk its responsibilities than face any challenges, answer the official opposition's questions and allow a real debate on issues that are of concern to Canadians. That is the real problem.

If the government wants to fully debate the bills on the order paper, then it should allow the House to sit until June 21, as set out on the calendar. The NDP is prepared to debate. The NDP is prepared to sit until June 21, as scheduled.

We have demonstrated our commitment and dedication to Parliament on numerous occasions. One of our members once even sat for 22 consecutive hours. When the government wanted to lock out Canada Post employees, we were there to debate and to stand up for Canadians.

Every day, we are here to stand up for the interests of Canadians. We routinely propose amendments in order move forward on bills that have sometimes been introduced over a year and a half ago, but these amendments are rejected by a government that wants to promote a political agenda rather than work for Canadians.

First and foremost, we oppose the government's motivations for wanting to impose extended sitting hours. Canadians will not be fooled. They understand the political game that the Conservatives are constantly playing. Canadians know that they cannot trust the Conservatives.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is indeed the case, because it is the number one priority of our government. One can see it in our legislative agenda.

I just went through some of the elements of Bill C-60. There are others, such as support for genomics research for Genome Canada and support for the Canada Youth Business Foundation to encourage an entrepreneurial ethic in the future for future generations. I know that an entrepreneurial ethic is something that is foreign to the NDP, but it is something we believe in and that we believe deserves support.

There is also funding for Indspire, for post-secondary scholarships and bursaries for first nations and Inuit students. This is something we are going to have an opportunity to debate and vote in favour of. Perhaps the NDP members will change their votes from the past, when they opposed it.

Enhancing the adoption expense tax credit is another item. Introducing a new, temporary, first-time donor super-credit for first-time claimants for charitable donations is another. These and many other measures are, of course, included in our budget and in Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 bill, which is focused on economic growth, job creation and long-term prosperity.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is some great irony to me in folks proclaiming how hard-working they are while they vote and oppose motions to work harder. That is what this motion is for.

The member raised the issue of economic certainty. Some of the things we hope to deal with are important for economic certainty. They are things that he and the NDP have already voted against. They are things like extending for two years the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for new investment in machinery and equipment. This makes our manufacturers and our workers more competitive, more productive and more able to compete in global markets. This is something the NDP opposes. Indexing the gas fund payment to municipalities to better support their job-creating infrastructure is, again, something they voted against. However, we are determined that it should get through, notwithstanding the NDP's opposition.

There are reforms to the temporary foreign worker program so that the priorities of Canadian workers come first. New Democrats claim to be a workers' party, but they are opposing those measures and our economic action plan, Bill C-60.

I could go on and on, but these are the kinds of measures we are proposing to help ensure that Canada's focus is on job creation, economic growth and long-term prosperity.

Extention of Sitting Hours

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up where I left off. Obviously my hon. friend did not hear this and has not read the motion. I will respond to his macho riposte at the end of his comments by pointing out that the motion would do three things: first, it would provide for us to sit until midnight; second, it would provide a manageable way in which to hold votes in a fashion that works for members of the House; and third, it would provide for concurrence debates to happen and motions to be voted on in a fashion that would not disrupt the work of all the committees of the House and force them to come back here for votes and shut down the work of committees.

Those are the three things the motion would do. In all other respects the Standing Orders remain in place, including the Standing Orders for how long the House sits. Had my friend actually read the motion, he would recognize that the only way in which that Standing Order could then be changed would be by unanimous consent of the House.

The member needs no commitment from me as to how long we will sit. Any member of the House can determine that question, if he or she wishes to adjourn other than the rules contemplate, but the rules are quite clear in what they do contemplate.

As I was saying, the reason for the motion is that Canadians expect their members of Parliament to work hard and get things done on their behalf.

Canadians expect their members of Parliament to work hard and get things done on their behalf.

We agree and that is exactly what has happened here in the House of Commons.

However, do not take my word for it; look at the facts. In this Parliament the government has introduced 76 pieces of legislation. Of those 76, 44 of them are law in one form or another. That makes for a total of 58% of the bills introduced into Parliament. Another 15 of these bills have been passed by either the House or the Senate, bringing the total to 77% of the bills that have been passed by one of the two Houses of Parliament. That is the record of a hard-working, orderly and productive Parliament.

More than just passing bills, the work we are doing here is delivering real results for Canadians. However, there is still yet more work to be done before we return to our constituencies for the summer.

During this time our government's top priority has been jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity. Through two years and three budgets, we have passed initiatives that have helped to create more than 900,000 net new jobs since the global economic recession. We have achieved this record while also ensuring that Canada's debt burden is the lowest in the G7. We are taking real action to make sure the budget will be balanced by 2015. We have also followed through on numerous longstanding commitments to keep our streets and communities safe, to improve democratic representation in the House of Commons, to provide marketing freedom for western Canadian grain farmers and to eliminate once and for all the wasteful and inefficient long gun registry.

Let me make clear what the motion would and would not do. There has been speculation recently, including from my friend opposite, about the government's objectives and motivations with respect to motion no. 17. As the joke goes: Mr. Freud, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. So it is with today's motion. There is only one intention motivating the government in proposing the motion: to work hard and deliver real results for Canadians.

The motion would extend the hours the House sits from Monday through Thursday. Instead of finishing the day around 6:30 or 7 p.m., the House would sit instead until midnight.

This would amount to an additional 20 hours each week. Extended sitting hours is something that happens most years in June. Our government just wants to roll up our sleeves and work a little harder, earlier this year. The motion would allow certain votes to be deferred automatically until the end of question period, to allow for all honourable members' schedules to be a little more orderly.

As I said, all other rules would remain. For example, concurrence motions could be moved, debated and voted upon. Today's motion would simply allow committees to continue doing their work instead of returning to the House for motions to return to government business and the like. This process we are putting forward would ensure those committees could do their good work and be productive, while at the same time the House could proceed with its business. Concurrence motions could ultimately be dealt with, debated and voted upon.

We are interested in working hard and being productive and doing so in an orderly fashion, and that is the extent of what the motion would do. I hope that the opposition parties would be willing to support this reasonable plan and let it come forward to a vote. I am sure members opposite would not be interested in going back to their constituents to say they voted against working a little overtime before the House rises for the summer, but the first indication from my friend opposite is that perhaps he is reluctant to do that. Members on this side of the House are willing to work extra hours to deliver real results for Canadians.

Some of those accomplishments we intend to pass are: reforming the temporary foreign workers program to put the interests of Canadians first; implementing tax credits for Canadians who donate to charity; enhancing the tax credit for parents who adopt; and extending the tax credit for Canadians who take care of loved ones in their home.

We also want to support veterans and their families by improving the determination of veterans' benefits.

Of course, these are some of the important measures from this year's budget and are included in Bill C-60, economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1. We are also working toward results for aboriginals by moving closer to equality for Canadians living on reserves through better standards for drinking water and finally giving women on reserves the same rights and protections other Canadian women have had for decades. Bill S-2, family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, and Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act would deliver on those very important objectives.

We will also work to keep our streets and communities safe by making real improvements to the witness protection program through Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act. I think that delivering these results for Canadians is worth working a few extra hours each week.

We will work to bring the Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, into law. Bill C-48 would provide certainty to the tax code. It has been over a decade since a bill like this has passed, so it is about time this bill passed. In fact, after question period today, I hope to start third reading of this bill, so perhaps we can get it passed today.

We will also work to bring Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act, into law. The bill would support economic growth by ensuring that all shippers, including farmers, are treated fairly. Over the next few weeks we will also work, hopefully with the co-operation of the opposition parties, to make progress on other important initiatives.

Bill C-54 will ensure that public safety is the paramount consideration in the decision-making process involving high-risk accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. This is an issue that unfortunately has affected every region of this country. The very least we can do is let the bill come to a vote and send it to committee where witnesses can testify about the importance of these changes.

Bill C-49 would create the Canadian museum of history, a museum for Canadians that would tell our stories and present our country's treasures to the world.

Bill S-14, the Fighting Foreign Corruption Act, will do just that by further deterring and preventing Canadian companies from bribing foreign public officials. These amendments will help ensure that Canadian companies continue to act in good faith in the pursuit of freer markets and expanded global trade.

Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act, would implement that 2009 treaty by amending the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act to add prohibitions on importing illegally acquired fish.

Tonight we will be voting on Bill S-9, the Nuclear Terrorism Act, which will allow Canada to honour its commitments under international agreements to tackle nuclear terrorism. Another important treaty—the Convention on Cluster Munitions—can be given effect if we adopt Bill S-10, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act.

We will seek to update and modernize Canada’s network of income tax treaties through Bill S-17, the Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013, by giving the force of law to recently signed agreements between Canada and Namibia, Serbia, Poland, Hong Kong, Luxembourg and Switzerland.

Among other economic bills is Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act. The bill would protect Canadians from becoming victims of trademark counterfeiting and goods made using inferior or dangerous materials that lead to injury or even death. Proceeds from the sale of counterfeit goods may be used to support organized crime groups. Clearly, this bill is another important one to enact.

Important agreements with the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador would be satisfied through Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, which would, among other things, create the Sable Island national park reserve, and Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act, which would provide clear rules for occupational health and safety of offshore oil and gas installations.

Earlier I referred to the important work of committees. The Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations inspired Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act. We should see that committee's ideas through by passing this bill. Of course, a quick reading of today's order paper would show that there are yet still more bills before the House of Commons for consideration and passage. All of these measures are important and will improve the lives of Canadians. Each merits consideration and hard work on our part.

In my weekly business statement prior to the constituency week, I extended an offer to the House leaders opposite to work with me to schedule and pass some of the other pieces of legislation currently before the House. I hope that they will respond to my request and put forward at our next weekly meeting productive suggestions for getting things done. Passing today's motion would be a major step toward accomplishing that. As I said in my opening comments, Canadians expect each one of us to come to Ottawa to work hard, vote on bills and get things done.

In closing, I commend this motion to the House and encourage all hon. members to vote for this motion, add a few hours to our day, continue the work of our productive, orderly and hard-working Parliament, and deliver real results for Canadians.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue the debate on today’s opposition motion from the NDP. Pursuant to the rules of the House, time is allocated and there will be a vote after the two-day debate.

Tomorrow we will resume the third reading debate on Bill S-9, the Nuclear Terrorism Act. As I mentioned on Monday, I am optimistic that we will pass that important bill this week.

Should we have extra time on Friday, we will take up Bill C-48, the Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, at report stage and third reading.

When we come back from constituency week, I am keen to see the House make a number of accomplishments for Canadians. Allow me to make it clear to the House what the government's priorities are.

Our government will continue to focus on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. In doing that, we will be working on reforming the temporary foreign worker program to put the interests of Canadians first; implementing tax credits for Canadians who donate to charity and parents who adopt; extending tax credits for Canadians who take care of loved ones in their homes; supporting veterans and their families by improving the balance for determining veterans' benefits; moving closer to equality for Canadians living on reserves through better standards for drinking water, which my friend apparently objects to; giving women on reserves the rights and protections that other Canadian women have had for decades, something to which he also objects; and keeping our streets and communities safer by making real improvements to the witness protection program. We will of course do more.

Before we rise for the summer, we will tackle the bills currently listed on the order paper, as well as any new bills which might get introduced. After Victoria Day, we will give priority consideration to bills that have already been considered by House committees.

For instance, we will look at Bill C-48, which I just mentioned, Bill C-51, the Safer Witnesses Act, Bill C-52, the Fair Rail Freight Service Act, and Bill S-2, the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, which I understand could be reported back soon.

I look forward also to getting back from committee and passing Bill C-60, , the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1; Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act; and Bill C-21, the political loans accountability act.

We have, of course, recently passed Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act, and Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act. Hopefully, tomorrow we will pass Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act.

Finally, we will also work toward second reading of several bills including Bill C-12, the safeguarding Canadians' personal information act; Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act; Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act; Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act; Bill C-57, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act; Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act; Bill S-6, the first nations elections act; Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act; Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act; Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act; Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act; Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, which establishes Sable Island National Park; and Bill S-17, the tax conventions implementation act, 2013.

I believe and I think most Canadians who send us here expect us to do work and they want to see us vote on these things and get things done. These are constructive measures to help all Canadians and they certainly expect us to do our job and actually get to votes on these matters.

I hope we will be able to make up enough time to take up all of these important bills when we come back, so Canadians can benefit from many parliamentary accomplishments by the members of Parliament they have sent here this spring.

Before taking my seat, let me formally designate, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), Tuesday, May 21, as the day appointed for the consideration in a committee of the whole of all votes under Natural Resources in the main estimates for the final year ending March 31, 2014. This would be the second of two such evenings following on tonight's proceedings.

Opposition Motion—2013 Spring Report of the Auditor General of Canada

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my NDP colleague from Pontiac on his excellent speech and excellent initiative.

He has moved a motion that asks a fairly simple question: where has taxpayers' money gone? How can the Conservative government lose $3.1 billion and not know what happened to it?

With Bill C-60, we see a government that wants to meddle in the negotiations of crown corporations' collective agreements. This paternalistic and condescending government is telling them that they are incapable of managing public money and that the President of the Treasury Board has to be at the negotiating table because he wants to ensure that public money is well spent.

Why does the government feel that it is in a position to give crown corporations advice on how to run their affairs when it cannot keep track of $3.1 billion?

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House and speak to Bill C-60, an act to implement certain measures in the budget that was presented on March 21 by the Minister of Finance.

This bill is about continuing the important work of this government on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. This bill would implement very important measures for all Canadians, and I know it would improve the lives of people across Canada and in my riding of Mississauga—Streetsville.

At the outset, I would like to quote some of other things the Minister of Finance told the House on March 21 when he tabled economic action plan 2013. He stated:

Canada is in an enviable position among the world's industrial economies. We have fared relatively better than most in the aftermath of the worst recession in a generation. As many of our allies and trading partners continue to struggle, we are well placed to prosper.

...by sticking to the long...view...by taking strong, decisive actions whenever it has been required. We have grown stronger, even as many have weakened.

However, he went on to say:

...it is...clear to the world that Canada has picked the right path and the right plan, a responsible plan for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

I am proud to be a member of a government that is committed to a solid plan for the near and long term. I am proud of a Minister of Finance and a Prime Minister who have put the economy first. However, I am also immensely proud of Canadians who continue to work hard, do their best and make Canada the greatest country in the world. There is no better way this is shown than through community service and charitable giving. It has been my honour and privilege to serve on many community agencies in the city of Mississauga with passionate volunteers for more than three decades. I see the wonderful work that each and every one of them does, and I see the tremendous generosity of people who donate to these vital organizations.

That is why I am so delighted to see that this bill would implement a new super credit for first-time donors to charitable organizations, so that we may bring in thousands of new contributors to support these important services. Charitable giving promotes philanthropy and good citizenship while helping others when they need it most.

I had the distinct pleasure to serve as a member of the board of directors of the Peel Children's Aid Society and Peel Children's Aid Foundation, and I am very pleased to see that this bill would allow certain adoption-related expenses, incurred before a child's adoption file is opened, to be now eligible for the adoption expense tax credit. Our CAS system plays a very important role in adoption, and any way we can help families with the costs of this would be greatly appreciated.

I see as well that there is good news in this bill for veterans. The bill would amend the War Veterans Allowance Act to ensure that veterans' disability benefits would no longer be deducted when calculating the war veteran allowance, and the contributions for the Last Post Fund for funeral and burial services would be doubled.

Further, this budget is very good news for our partners in the municipalities across Canada. Bill C-60 proposes to index the gas tax revenue that is sent to municipalities, which they use for important transit and transportation infrastructure that suits local needs. Our last budget made this transfer permanent, and this one would ensure that the funds would grow with inflation. This government respects our towns and cities, and works with them as true partners. I am certain that in my own city of Mississauga these important funds would help our city continue to grow and provide needed transportation infrastructure for many years to come.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, I am very pleased to see that this bill proposes changes to the temporary foreign worker program, to ensure that it operates within its original mandate—to permit the use of foreign workers on a temporary basis in certain sectors where Canadians cannot fill those jobs—and to ensure ultimate accountability through a new registration and fee process. While there has been much media fanfare about the TFW program, it is still a vital system for some areas of the country and should be improved, not scrapped. Bill C-60 proposes a strengthened program with the proper checks and balances as we move forward.

There is also new support for job creators. Bill C-60 proposes changes to the mineral exploration tax credit, it would extend the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance rate for machinery and equipment, and it would modernize the general preferential tariff regime for developing countries to help Canadian companies better compete with foreign firms.

It also would provide more than $70 million in tariff relief for families purchasing sports equipment or baby clothing.

Through this budget, the Government of Canada is renewing its commitment of fiscal transfers to the provinces for equalization until March of 2019, providing them that important sense of stable funding. Bill C-60 would make a number of changes that continue Canada moving on the path of better jobs and greater prosperity. It sets an important tone of confidence and responsibility at times that are still cautious and fragile. This is not the time to propose huge new tax increases on Canadians or go on wild spending sprees. We cannot play fast and loose with Canadians' hard-earned tax dollars, and we cannot slag our trading partners and the private sector.

As we move forward, I look forward to the implementation of the new Canada job grant with the provinces and employers; I look forward to the ten-year renewal of the Canada building fund with provinces and municipalities; I look forward to the five-year renewal of the affordable housing program and the homelessness partnering strategy; I look forward to the renewal of the hiring tax credit for Canada's job creators; I look forward to new investments in innovation and technology; and I look forward to Canada's continued economic leadership at home and in the world.

It is easy for members on the other side to criticize while offering no ideas of their own, other than raising taxes and increasing spending. That is not a plan for Canada; it is a recipe for disaster.

As the Minister of Finance concluded on March 21:

Today we move this responsible plan forward, forward toward that bright future. With this plan, our government renews our commitment to Canadians, our commitment to jobs, our commitment to growth, our commitment to long-term prosperity for all Canadians.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

The Budget

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Mississauga East—Cooksville for the question. I also ask why the NDP and Liberal MPs plan to vote against Bill C-60, the first step in implementing the economic action plan, 2013.

I am deeply disappointed that they would oppose job-creating measures to help manufacturers while denying support for vulnerable Canadians in the form of palliative care, veterans disability benefits and library services for the blind. I call on the NDP and Liberal members to—

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while our Conservative government is standing up for Canada's economy with Bill C-60, economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1, later today the opposition is planning to vote against it. Why are NDP and Liberal MPs saying no to more support for manufacturers, saying no to increased support for infrastructure in our cities and towns, saying no to new tax relief for parents adopting a child or for Canadians who give to a charity?

Can the Minister of Finance please update this House on the status of Bill C-60?

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

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

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents of the Vancouver area concerned about the protection of the CBC, which is particularly timely given the debate we are having today on provisions in Bill C-60 that would compromise the independence of the CBC.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, clauses 213 to 224 regarding the National Capital Act and the Department of Canadian Heritage Act be removed from Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, and that these clauses do compose Bill C-62; that Bill C-62 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage; that Bill C-60 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order; that Bill C-60 be reprinted as amended; and that the law clerk and the parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.

Labour

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, the Conservatives are against Canada's millions of unionized workers and their rights, which they systematically attack. However, hidden at the very end of Bill C-60, so that few people would even realize it is there, is a measure attacking the managers of crown corporations by interfering with their negotiating powers. Now the Conservatives want to be able to control the offers that management puts on the table, as though the head of the CBC needs any advice from a minister who lost track of $3 billion.

Before putting his nose into everyone else's business, can the minister do his homework and respect the independence of crown corporations?

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the opposition House leader for his stream-of-consciousness therapy.

Our government, however, is very focused. Our top priority is jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. With that in mind, this afternoon we will continue second reading debate on the cornerstone item of our legislative agenda, which is Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1. We will continue this debate tomorrow.

Next Monday, May 6, will be the fourth day of second reading debate on this important job creation bill, and Tuesday May 7 will be the fifth and final day.

Once debate is concluded, the House will have an opportunity to vote on the substantive job creation measures in this bill.

On Wednesday, the House will debate Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act. This will be the fourth time this bill is debated at second reading so it is my hope and expectation that this bill will come to a vote.

With the vote, there will be another clear choice before the House. Members will be voting to allow for national standards for on-reserve drinking water. This is a question of basic equality. I know the opposition voted against equality for women on reserves when it voted against Bill S-2, matrimonial property on reserves, but I hope they have stopped grasping at excuses to oppose equal treatment for first nations and will now support Bill S-8.

While I am speaking about aboriginal affairs, allow me to take the time to notify the House that I am designating, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), Thursday, May 9, for consideration in committee of the whole all votes under Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014.

On Thursday, we will continue to advance the economic priority of our legislative agenda by debating Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012, in the morning. Following question period on Thursday, May 9, we will continue Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act at third reading. I understand there is broad support for this bill, so I hope to see it pass swiftly. Then we can move on to other legislation, including: Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act; Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act; Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act; Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act; Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act; Bill S-13, the coastal fisheries protection act; and Bill S-14, the fighting foreign bribery act.

Finally, Friday, May 10 will be the seventh allotted day, which I understand will be for the NDP.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have just been introduced to a new riding in the House of Commons, the riding of Toronto South, which I believe has a somewhat aquatic environment.

This morning the government introduced time allocation on omnibus 3.0. Yesterday, we started debating the 120-odd pages of Bill C-60 and after just two hours of debate, the government thought it was enough and brought in time allocation for the 32nd time in this Parliament's session, more than any government in Canadian history. No wonder the government is afraid of discussion. Just this week, the Auditor General brought to light some problems that were raised by the official opposition and have been for many years now. The marine search and rescue program is falling apart, the temporary foreign worker program is an absolute fiasco and is being abused and more than $3 billion in taxpayer money has been simply misplaced and misunderstood. There is something seriously wrong.

Instead, we have a government that ignores the good advice of the official opposition and Canadians. It imposes its bills without proper debate, tries to solve problems in committee once it realizes that it is on the wrong track, or waits for the courts to strike down its bills because they go against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution.

It is unbelievable that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons does not realize that there is a fundamental problem with this approach. It simply does not work.

With the clock ticking on the antidemocratic antics of closure, could the government House leader tell us what he has planned for the remainder of this week and the week to come?

The Environment

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight to speak and to ask two questions of the government.

The first is about liability for accidents at offshore drilling installations and at nuclear power plants. The liability limits, in the case of an accident at an offshore drilling operation, are only $30 million in the Atlantic and $40 million in the Arctic. I think the government members would agree with me that these liability limits are too low. These are caps on the amount a company is liable for in the case of an accident.

The Conservatives have hinted that legislation may be forthcoming to increase these limits. Let me just give a simple illustration of why these limits need to be increased. The current limit is $40 million in the Arctic. The cost of the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico was $40 billion. That is 1,000 times more than the current liability limit.

I know that the Conservatives have hinted that some legislation may be forthcoming. When is that legislation forthcoming? Could it not have been introduced in Bill C-60, which has a number of pieces that did not appear in the budget?

The second place liability limits need to be increased is at nuclear power plants. Currently the liability cap is only $75 million. I know that when we had a minority Conservative government, legislation to increase the liability limits on accidents at nuclear power plants from $75 million to something like $650 million or more was introduced three different times. All three bills died for one reason or another, whether it was an early election, prorogation or simply that the bill was not advanced by the government. However, now that we have a majority Conservative government, and have for two years, I do not understand why the government has not introduced stand-alone legislation that could be examined carefully and debated.

Why could the Conservatives not simply reintroduce legislation they were willing to introduce in a minority government? I challenge the government to explain why it has not done so. I think people will ask whether the Conservatives, which now have a majority government, really wanted to increase the liability limits when they were in a minority government. That is my other question.

In response to my initial question in question period, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, speaking for the government, said, “the foundation for our liability regime is the polluter pay principle”. That is something that perhaps all members of the House could agree on.

Now that the current government is spending a lot of time going to the United States to lobby the government there to approve the Keystone XL pipeline and to claim that Canada is strong on environmental protection, would the government extend the polluter pay principle, and would it apply it to other things that damage the natural environment? They are lobbying the United States government and claim to be protecting the natural environment and caring about climate change.