Evidence of meeting #67 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was federal.
A video is available from Parliament.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Do you think the strategy to eliminate the deficit is the right strategy? Can you answer that question, Madam Silas?
6:20 p.m.
Full Professor, Department of Political Science, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
I'll just say that we had budgetary surpluses for many years before your government came to power, and I think there are ways to achieve—
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
I only have about 30 seconds left, so we'll go to Mr. Pineau.
6:20 p.m.
Full Professor, Department of Political Science, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
I'm done then.
6:20 p.m.
National Director, Canadian Conference of the Arts
The objective is good. The strategy is questionable.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
6:20 p.m.
Communication Policy, Canadian Media Guild
I reject the premise of the question. I don't believe you're actually going to eliminate the deficit in the approach that's been taken globally.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
6:20 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Museums Association
Well, I think the question is sound, in that, yes, we need to balance our federal budget as much as we would be balancing our household budgets. The question of how that is implemented—
6:20 p.m.
Project Organizer, Council of Canadians
Mr. Chair, austerity is not an excuse, and then we have to look at investments. So “Walkerton” is the one word I would say; you can actually end up costing a lot more by cutting in the wrong place.
6:20 p.m.
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If you saw me furiously typing here, I was trying to collect my thoughts just a little bit, because we've been at this for a long time.
We've heard many times from the government members, and I'm not disputing their claims, but they talk about how this is not the largest budget bill, and that's a fact. They speak primarily of previous budgets of their own as far as the number of pages go, but it almost misses the point, because witness after witness and organization after organization here at these hearings has raised concerns about Bill C-38. They see Bill C-38 for what it is: it's a major offence to Canadian democracy.
6:20 p.m.
A voice
[Inaudible--Editor]
6:20 p.m.
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
No, not everything in the bill is bad. In fact, for some of the things that Ms. Glover raised and that some of the witnesses agreed with, if they were stand-alone things in the budget without some of these other things piled on top of them, you might actually be shocked to see that we might have supported it.
But the approach, the omnibus style of this bill, causes it to impede MPs from our ability to use what expertise we may have. Critics were given areas like the environment or whatever, and if these had been taken to the appropriate committees for us to do due diligence appropriately and properly, we'd be far better off.
I want to say something to Mr. Naidoo. You said that the COC is 25 years old.
6:20 p.m.
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
You're making me feel old, because I was a founding member of the Council of Canadians and the president of the first Hamilton chapter. I thought I'd put that on the record before anybody starts over there—
6:20 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
6:20 p.m.
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
But I'll say to you that the Council of Canadians came into existence because of our fears for democracy at the time. It was framed around the free trade agreement, right or wrong, whichever way it went.
I think Bill C-38 has a more damaging effect on Canadian democracy today than anything I've seen since the 1980s. This is a huge bill that is about to force changes in law, in the laws that govern us, the laws for the protection of Canadians in food inspection, the environment, retirement security, employment insurance, and many, many other areas of the operations of our government.
Now, as you see...and members on the other side, I'll offer this to you: as we see our witnesses come in, the successive groups that have come in are a little bit like we are. We get a little testy because we're tired, but they're also starting to recognize the impacts of Bill C-38 and the potential problems.
I appeal to the government side to really honestly look into yourselves and think about what we're about to do here. Really consider it. Put the partisan stuff aside. All of us should do that.
We are at risk of doing severe damage in several areas of our country. We can debate it. We can go back and forth. I think that you are actually people of reasonably good will, overall, from my experience with you, but we are failing Canadian by taking this approach. We have to do better. The future of our country is hinging on several areas of this. You may agree or disagree on the environmental changes, but they're not getting the look they deserve and that Canadians deserve to have us take. We are not able to do our due diligence.
In the future, when they look back at this particular government, they're going to say that was the one single major failure: that they impeded the due diligence of MPs.
If anybody wants to comment, go ahead, because I'm done.
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
6:25 p.m.
Project Organizer, Council of Canadians
Yes, I think this is directly about democracy. It is not only about our environment or.... It's about the founding of our country and the direction we choose at a critical moment.
I think that when you have CARP, health care professionals, archivists, charitable organizations, environmental groups, public servants, four ministers, the Council of Canadians.... There is such a broad swath of society that is standing up and taking note of this.
I would lend my voice and say to those on the government side to please also take note, because you do have to go back. It is on your shoulders to go back to your ridings and explain the changes that are happening.
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I just have one more person.
Professor Noël, did you want to comment?
6:25 p.m.
Full Professor, Department of Political Science, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
It's just on something along these lines. As members of Parliament, you should all be worried and concerned about preserving the role of Parliament in deliberating thoroughly on any issue, whatever side you are on. This is damaging to Parliament, the institution that you are making work.