Evidence of meeting #70 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was clauses.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you, Ms. Nash.
(Clauses 711 and 712 agreed to on division)
Thank you very much, Mr. Barr.
We will then move to division 56. This deals with clauses 713 to 753, the Assisted Human Reproduction Act.
(Clauses 713 to 753 inclusive agreed to)
I see that as unanimous.
(Schedule 1 agreed to)
Shall the short title carry?
We have to discuss the short title.
Conservative
NDP
Conservative
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
When we listen to this short title, when you hear “jobs, growth, long-term prosperity”, on the face of that we would all just sit here and say if this were real, if this delivered, it would be good. But there are huge, huge questions about this. You've heard them from this side repeatedly, on how Bill C-38 goes well beyond tax and monetary measures. It makes major changes in dozens of policy areas, including the environment, natural resources, human resources. These shouldn't have been resident in a finance committee.
We've been clear. We should not have been asked to vote on legislation that grants cabinet the power to make far-reaching regulatory changes like the ones we've seen included in this bill. It is 400 pages. We've had the discussion back and forth that yes, there have been larger bills, but not as comprehensive as this one.
I want everybody who happens to be watching—and at this time I'm sure we have thousands of people watching—
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
Well, this is scintillating, but I just want to remind people there's another bill to come in the fall. So if you take those bills together in the context of what they're trying to do....
So what is it about the bill that causes us to question the short title? First, the environmental overhaul doesn't belong in a budget bill. Government wants a one-project, one-review environmental assessment system. So it's repealing the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and replacing it with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012. That type of decision doesn't belong with this committee.
Yes, the chair and others granted us a subcommittee to look at it, but it didn't belong here. It sets out time limits for the completion of reviews, and the minister will have the power to shut down a review panel if he thinks it won't finish on time. How can you say that belongs in a budget bill? The types of decisions—this type of decision in particular—the due diligence that is supplied by comprehensive experts who are from the environment field.... It's not in jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity. That's not a part of it. That has to do with our environment.
As for due diligence, again, when it comes to employment insurance reform, you have a definition of suitable work that has been controversial. It doesn't belong with the finance committee. It clearly belongs with the human resources committee, because they are going to have to wrestle with this. So again, that's one of the reasons we're not satisfied with this short title. And the budget doesn't give any details on the criteria that will be used in that particular term.
And how does a decision on removing oversight for the Auditor General belong here? The Auditor General will no longer be required to do annual audits, as we've seen listed here, in 12 agencies, including the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the Northern Pipeline Agency. How does that belong here? How does that fit into the definition of the title that has been proposed by this government? It doesn't.
Where I come from, this is called putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. You have people making decisions without having the proper review. What does that have to do with jobs, growth, and prosperity? It has to do with the fact that you have power being consolidated with ministers at a level that has never been seen before, when these agencies have been removed. We can debate whether the Auditor General made this decision and moved it forward or whether the ministers did.
We've heard about the backlog in immigration and we've heard the stories that were told by the member for Newton—North Delta as she joined us here. That person, in her committee, would have been able to make compelling arguments against this legislation.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Mr. Marston, we're at our five-minute time limit here. You're at about five now, and I'm really allowing you a lot of latitude on relevance.
NDP
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Yes. I mean, we are discussing the short title. You're making overall arguments about the bill.
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
From my perspective, I was making overall arguments about the fact that this doesn't belong in a—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
You think the short title should be expanded to include all of these...?
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
The title should have been different. We have a bill that's dealing with the environment, with employment insurance, and dealing with a number of different things that are not budgetary in nature.
We're talking about jobs and growth and prosperity. We don't see that link.
Conservative
NDP
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
You know, there will be debate in the House on this, and there will be public debate.
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
I will look forward to the debate in the House.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will abide by the motion and the five minutes. I thank you for that.
I want to start by saying that the short title is reflective of what's in the bill. Jobs, growth, long-term prosperity—all of those things cover what is in the bill, things that are necessary for Canadians to actually succeed, necessary for Canadians to continue to live in the best country in the world. We are not ashamed of that. We celebrate that, and we'll continue to do so.
When we look at how much time we've spent studying this bill in committee—aside from the private reflection, the phone calls, the private deliberations we've had in talking to stakeholders, etc.—we're talking about a study that went on for some 60-plus hours. This was the longest amount of time dedicated to a budget bill in over 20 years.
I believe we've done well in putting this forward.
I want to thank my colleagues across the way for coming and deliberating on it, and for sticking to the time limit that was set out in the motion agreed upon by the committee. I do acknowledge that, and I want to thank them for that.
I also want to thank the chair for his patience, his incredible patience.
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
Of course we wouldn't be here without our analysts, our clerks, and all of the fine folks who are sitting behind the chair.