Debates of March 31st, 2010

Provision of Information to Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I thank the hon. Minister of Justice for his lengthy presentation on this subject. I see we are now going to have interventions from some other hon. members.

We will start with the hon. member for Scarborough--Rouge River.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am really seeking the guidance of the Chair here.

The minister has provided a very substantive reply to the initial interventions. It covered about an hour and a half, and while I am prepared to reply now, it might be a more effective engagement on these significant issues if I, and perhaps some of the others, had additional time, taking us into tomorrow or into the week that follows the break. However, I am prepared to reply now if you think that would be helpful.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Of course, the Speaker is not insistent on these matters. We have waited for some time for a government response. I am prepared to wait for a response from the hon. members who initially raised the matter if they would prefer that.

That is not a problem. We have spent enough time on this matter. I will certainly not be giving my decision tomorrow. So we will have enough time to review the arguments and other presentations can be made.

Before I give the floor to the hon. member for Saint-Jean, I must say one thing.

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood, International Aid; the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer, Afghanistan.

The hon. member for Saint-Jean.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to reply to the speeches from the two ministers.

When talking about this subject, I often begin my speech by talking about the protectors of the realm. They do an excellent job. Once again, the castle doors have been locked after what has just happened. We, the members of the grand inquest, must investigate the government's behaviour in all matters. It is important that we call on the government to table documents.

I will talk about the debates shortly because we must all have the same information in order to debate. If we do not have the same information, how can we debate effectively?

We have already said it, and we will say it again: Parliament has undisputed privileges that are recognized in the Constitution. Under these right and privileges, members can demand documents to ensure that the government is behaving properly in all matters.

Since we are not getting the documents—it has been almost four months since the motion of December 10, 2009—what are we waiting for to act on the motion moved on December 10?

As was the case last month and last week, they are scaling up their efforts.

On March 16, back in the House, the government realized this was a hot file. It did not know what to do and did not want to release the documents. It decided to appoint a highly skilled judge. We are not disputing his skills. He is indeed intelligent and competent, but this appointment is not a satisfactory response to the decision made on December 10, 2009. That is why we disagree with it.

What is more, the mandate given to the judge has no end date. We still think this is a case of contempt. In a dramatic turn of events, last week we learned that the government was going to table 2,600 pages of documents. As the members of the grand inquest, as parliamentarians, we had renewed hope. We were finally going to find out whether the government was behaving properly in this case. We waited with bated breath for the documents to be tabled, but only one series of documents was produced. They had all night to photocopy those documents in order to hand them out to the various parties. To everyone's surprise, at first, there was only one series of documents.

As the grand inquest, we were required to seek permission to go behind the Speaker's chair where documents are kept in order to consult these documents. We were astonished to see that what we were looking at were more censored documents. It was yet another delay tactic.

Today, we expected the ministers of the Crown, the great protectors of the realm, to explain their actions, to tell us that we were right, to release a certain number of uncensored documents, and to trust us.

That is not what happened. I am not interested in camping out in front of Buckingham Palace in order to convince the Queen that this is an important matter and that she must intervene. Nor am I interested in parking myself at Rideau Hall to inform the Governor General that I have something to tell her.

I have full confidence that the Speaker of the House of Commons will make the right decision in this matter. That is why I think they are stalling again.

The Minister of Justice did not let loose a river of words to evade the issue, it was more like a torrent. We could not stand it any more. We had to listen to him prattle on for an hour and a half. I will say right away that we reserve the right to revisit this matter. Out of respect, we will analyse what the ministers said. But for now, it would seem—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Is that the Governor General calling me?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order.

A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as follows:

Mr. Speaker, it is the desire of the Honourable the Deputy to Her Excellency the Governor General of Canada that this honourable House attend him immediately in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.

Accordingly the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.

And being returned:

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to certain bills.

The hon. member for Saint-Jean.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take up too much of the House's time. As I said earlier, we reserve the right to come back to this topic tomorrow and comment on everything the ministers said today. We are going to do a more thorough study and focus perhaps more on points of law than political points.

With your permission, I will give the floor to some of my colleagues, who would like to take over. Thank you for your patience, Mr. Speaker.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Just briefly, Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague from Saint-Jean wants to address this, but like the other members from the Bloc and the Liberal Party, would like to do it at a later time.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I have indicated that is satisfactory, so we will consider the matter closed for now.

Jobs and Economic Growth Act

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

moved that Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to start the second reading debate on the jobs and economic growth act. This ambitious legislation includes key elements of budget 2010 and year two of Canada's economic action plan. The jobs and economic growth act, a key component of that plan, is a testament to the proactive and aggressive actions that our Conservative government has taken; actions to ensure that not only Canada was protected from the worst of the global economic storm but that we will lead the global economic recovery.

As CIBC economist Warren Lovely recently noted:

Simply put, highly rated Canada offers safe harbour.... Few advanced economies boast stronger real GDP growth prospects--a view endorsed by our own economics department, a broad cross section of private sector banks, the Bank of Canada, the IMF and...the OECD. Meanwhile, Canada's near-term growth in nominal GDP should lead the G7...

Our Conservative government, through today's legislation, is working to address the long-term opportunities and challenges that our country will be confronting in the years ahead.

The jobs and economic growth act would accomplish that objective by bringing forward a range of economic measures to contribute to Canada's advantage now and for the future, for example, by: eliminating tariffs on manufacturing inputs and machinery and equipment; eliminating the need for tax reporting under section 116 of the Income Tax Act for many investments; narrowing the definition of taxable Canadian property; implementing important changes to strengthen federally regulated private pension plans; implementing the one time transfer protection payment to provincial governments announced in December 2009; regulating national payment card networks and their operators, if necessary; enabling credit unions to incorporate federally and operate as banks; making it easier for companies to offer telecommunication services to Canadians; stimulating the mining industry by extending the mineral exploration tax credit; creating greater tax fairness between single and two parent families with respect to claiming universal child care benefit amounts; implementing an enhanced stamping regime for tobacco products to deter contraband. There is much more in this document.

The jobs and economic growth act would also help restrain and focus spending. It proposes to freeze allowances and salaries for parliamentarians and reduce what are known as governor in council federal appointments.

Let us briefly look at a few of the aforementioned highlights of this legislation and hear what Canadians are saying about them.

First, we are proposing to completely eliminate tariffs on manufacturing inputs and machinery and equipment. This bold action will position Canada as the first country in the G7 and G20 to be a tariff-free zone for manufacturing. Manufacturers across this country are applauding that.

Canadian manufacturers will be able to produce their quality goods right here in Canada without job-killing tariffs and without a web of productivity-draining red tape. This will give our manufacturers the competitive advantage they need to succeed in the global marketplace.

This important initiative will lower production costs, increase competitiveness and enhance innovation and productivity. More important, it is estimated that our move to make Canada a tariff-free zone for manufacturing will create 12,000 new, good quality jobs in the years ahead.

This legislation builds on key Canadian economic advantages, such as being home to the soundest financial system in the world, and allows us to boast the lowest tax rate in the G7 for new investment.

The jobs and economic growth act would truly make Canada an even more attractive place for new investment and for the new jobs it would create. This would also further assist in diversifying Canada's trade patterns. It would complement our Conservative government's efforts to grow freer trade with places like the European Union and India and implement recent agreements with Colombia, Panama and Jordan.

Since announcing this bold initiative, we have heard a lot of positive feedback. In earlier speeches on budget 2010, I relayed some of the feedback to the House. Today, I would like to draw the attention of the House to even more applause that has been received since that time.

We have heard from business leaders like Linda Hasenfratz, CEO of Linamar Corporation, who praised the tariff reduction. She said, “Anything that we can do to reduce costs in terms of importing manufacturing equipment is going to be of benefit to us. We do buy a lot of equipment. We tend to spend somewhere between $180 million and $200 million a year on manufacturing equipment, so to improve the cost of that is going to be a benefit to us”.

Dani Reiss, CEO of that popular Arctic Canadian coat manufacturer, Canada Goose, also heralded it as “a great move...tariffs only made it more expensive to be a Canadian manufacturer. I think this move by the government will make made in Canada viable for more apparel companies”.

The Saskatchewan Trade and Export Partnership also calls the tariff-free zone “a big deal”, adding:

Investment in new machinery and the latest technology is one good way to more effectively produce goods and to make them more competitive. Much high-technology equipment must be imported from Europe and Asia, so eliminating tariffs helps make it more affordable for Canadian manufacturers.

Andrew Coyne, the respected public policy commentator and national editor for Macleans magazine cheered it as well. Andrew said that it is “terrific public policy, a shot in the arm for Canada's manufacturers, and a timely example to the rest of the world. It will lower costs, save on paperwork, and improve productivity. It will make Canada the G20's first tariff-free zone, and as such is likely to prove an attractive incentive to locate a plant here”.

I literally could devote my entire speech to passing along the many positive statements we have heard on the tariff-free zone for manufacturing initiatives that is simply a part of budget 2010 and legislated through the jobs and economic growth act. However, I would not have the opportunity to talk about many other great aspects of this bill, so I will move on. Maybe we could talk more about this later during the period for questions and comments.

Let us talk about the major positive pro-growth reform to section 116 of the Income Tax Act. Specifically, the bill helps by eliminating tax reporting for investments such as those by non-resident venture capital funds in a typical Canadian high tech firm. This would enhance the ability of Canadian businesses to attract foreign venture capital, fuelling job creation and economic growth. We have also heard glowing praise for this move from all across Canada.

Dave Bullock, CEO of LiveHive Systems, speaking for the Waterloo region tech cluster that is home to more than 700 technology companies, remarked:

Very simply, amending Section 116 removes one of the biggest barriers to growing successful companies in Canada - access to international investment capital.... This is a change that will give promising Canadian companies the opportunity to get to that next level.

Canada's research-based pharmaceutical companies also cheered the move as “a far-sighted approach...which will have the capacity to boost the flow of venture capital into Canada for biotechnology and biopharmaceutical companies”.

Another key element of the jobs and economic growth act is the important changes to strengthen federally regulated private pension plans. I am proud to say I was personally very involved in the development of these changes. By way of background, in early 2009, our Conservative government announced we would review issues related to pensions under federal jurisdiction, regulated by way of the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985.

This represented the first comprehensive review in nearly three decades. We started that process in January 2009 when we released for public comment a major research paper on legislative and regulatory regimes for federally regulated private pension plans. We followed that up with extensive cross-country and online public consultations open to all Canadians. We asked for input on the legislative and regulatory framework for federally regulated private pension plans.

From March until May 2009, I travelled across Canada from Halifax to Vancouver to Whitehorse and many places in between. What is more, despite the challenging timelines and logistical challenges, we never once left anyone at the microphone who wanted to speak. Every single person who wanted to have his or her voice heard on this very important file was offered that opportunity.

Let me take a brief moment to express my thanks to all those people who took the time to participate in that process, either in person or online. Their involvement was central and absolutely necessary for the entire process to be both meaningful and successful. During that consultation I heard very unique, personal and raw stories. This focused my determination to get it right, to ensure that this landmark study of federally regulated private pensions and whatever reforms followed from it got it right. It was just too important.

We carefully reviewed all the submissions throughout the summer and into the early fall of 2009, when we announced a package of significant reforms to federally regulated pensions that, I humbly suggest, did get it right. There is one change I am particularly pleased with and it is included in the jobs and economic growth act. Namely, it is the requirement for plan sponsors who voluntarily wind up a pension plan to fund 100% of their contractual commitments to those plan members.

Travelling around Canada, time and again I heard troubling stories of various plan sponsors who made a decision to stop offering a defined benefit plan to their employees. On too many occasions, this meant that those retirees did not receive 100% of what they had been promised and deserved. The old framework actually allowed that to occur. We thought that was wrong, and that is why we are changing that in this act.

Other key reforms to federally regulated pensions in the jobs and economic growth act consist of the following: authorizing an employer to use a letter of credit if certain conditions are met, to satisfy solvency funding obligations in respect to a pension plan that has not been terminated in whole; establishing a distressed pension plan workout scheme, under which the employer and representatives of the members and retirees may negotiate changes to the plan's funding requirements, subject to the approval of the Minister of Finance; and permitting the superintendent of financial institutions to replace an actuary if the superintendent is of the opinion that it is in the best interests of members or retirees. Much more was added into that as well.

I am happy to report that the reforms we announced were very well received by public interest groups and many commentators. Let me take a moment to share what I heard with the House. First, the National Association of Federal Retirees was “pleased to hear that the Government of Canada is taking action to strengthen the pension framework and enhance benefit security...”.

Dan Braniff, founder of the Common Front for Retirement Security, in a letter to the Minister of Finance wrote, “On behalf of the Common Front for Retirement Security, I wish to congratulate you.... This is an important milestone for creating greater security for many pensioners and plan members.... We also wish to show our appreciation for the excellent work of [the member for Macleod] who travelled across Canada and obviously listened to the voices of pensioners.... Thank you for taking this very important step for better retirement security at this very critical time”.

Raymond Bertrand, president of Bell Pensioners' Group, in a letter to my office, added, “I am writing to you on behalf of the Bell Pensioners' Group to express our appreciation for the manner in which you have consulted with Canadians, and in particular pensioners, who are most affected by amendments.... You made sure the voice of pensioners was heard in the round table consultation process which you so ably led. You clearly identified that one of your main priorities was to protect the pension promise. On behalf of all our members, please accept our thanks for your willingness to move forward the very difficult policy agenda of pension reform”.

Ian Lee, of Carleton University Sprott School of Business, called the reforms “far-reaching because they do address some of the demands that were being made by pension advocates.... What it's going to do is create a framework that is going to allow for greater scrutiny...[and] change the rules whereby companies can contribute more money...in aggregate I think it's going to ensure that our pensions are on a better footing, a more solid foundation”.

As well, the Canadian Labour Congress admitted:

These changes result from the consultations the government has held over the past year and some of them look good....

One more positive element of the jobs and economic growth act that I would like to take a moment to highlight today is the provisions to enable credit unions to incorporate federally. In this legislation, we are proposing to create a federal legislative framework for credit unions. This is to promote the continued growth and competitiveness of the financial sector. Allowing credit unions to grow and be competitive on a national scale will broaden choices for consumers and attract new members. It will also improve services to existing members across provincial borders.

Again, we have heard a lot of great feedback on this particular provision.

Credit Union Atlantic has hailed this move as “an important step forward for the credit union system...this provides a framework for a more competitive banking system in Canada and will enable further growth of the credit union alternative”.

The Case for Progress Committee, a coalition of several credit unions across this country, called it a “historic milestone”:

This new legislation benefits all Canadians by increasing their choices in selecting a financial institution. It will strengthen the stability and the competitiveness of the entire financial services industry in Canada.

In my short time today, I have only scratched the surface of what is clearly a very ambitious piece of legislation.

The jobs and economic growth act contains much more good news in this legislation that I am sure the opposition will welcome, items like the important financial support for excellent organizations such as the Canadian Youth Business Foundation, Genome Canada, Pathways to Education and the Rick Hansen Foundation.

Canada is certainly showing strong, hopeful signs of economic recovery. I do want to caution the House, though. The signs are still not strong enough to warrant a switch of focus away from the economy.

The economic action plan and its related components, like the jobs and economic growth act, is making an important positive contribution across Canada.

As The Toronto Star recently noted:

The Northern Tiger is back....

Canada's attractive record in job creation, GDP growth and comparative fiscal strength is well known....

You could call it “Canada's moment,” a chapter in history that finds the Canadian economy outperforming expectations while major foreign economies are still in distress.

Let us all work together, across the aisle and party lines, to keep up the momentum.

Let us support this legislation and build Canada's economic advantage today and for tomorrow.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech. Apparently it was supposed to be about the jobs and economic growth act. We heard a lot about pensions, which do not seem to have that much to do with the particular bill in front of the House at this particular time.

I would be interested in the hon. member's comments on the use of the stimulus moneys.

What we know for sure is that we have added about $165 billion to the debt of this country. What we do not know for sure is whether any of that stimulus money actually contributed to the recovery of the economy. In fact there are those who say that not only did it not contribute to the recovery of the economy but it will actually act as a counterweight to future recoveries, because by the time the money gets into the economy, it will be competing with the private sector.

I would be interested in the hon. gentleman's comments with respect to whether he or the Department of Finance, or anyone, has an economic model that shows that the stimulus money actually assisted in the recovery of the economy.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think even that hon. member understands, from his time sitting around the table at the Department of Finance in Canada, that these numbers do not just come out of a hat. I think all hon. members in this House realize that.

We put forward a number, 220,000 jobs, that would grow out of this stimulus money. We are over 160,000 new jobs since July of last year, so we are well on our way.

Budget 2010 is year two of a two-part plan, the economic action plan that put taxpayers' money into projects to stimulate the economy, and from all accounts we are hearing from all corners of this country, it is working. We have new jobs. We are protecting existing jobs. We are also providing employment insurance for those people who lost—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Hochelaga.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to question my colleague, the hon. member for Macleod, in Alberta, who is taking our questions on the implementation of the budget. However, one aspect has been completely overlooked. He was raising some questions and comments earlier, but I will leave it up to the member for Burlington to ask him some planted questions.

The member for Macleod undoubtedly knows that last Friday the chief justice of the Quebec Court of Appeal completely rejected the federal government's arguments, directly from the bench.

Now, in his home province, the Alberta Court of Appeal is about to give the same ruling, that is, it is about to stop the federal government from cutting jobs in Quebec and Alberta, jobs in the provincial securities commissions, affecting lawyers, notaries and financiers.

Why is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance conspiring with the Minister of Finance to cut jobs in Montreal, in my home province, and in his home province, Alberta?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the exact opposite is true.

The money we are injecting into this entire Canadian economy has probably provided more job growth in the province of Quebec than it has in my province of Alberta. It is a little troubling. We have one of the largest job losses in western Canada because of the oil and gas sector that actually provides heat for the hon. member's home and fuel for the hon. member's car. I am sure he is quite grateful for the fact that we can actually produce that in this country and do not have to import it.

However, considering a Canadian securities regulator, it is voluntary. Everyone in this House knows that, and I would encourage even the Bloc to get on board with supporting that voluntary Canadian securities regulator.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Manitoba has very successful credit union movement. We have the Steinbach Credit Union and the Assiniboine Credit Union. The member mentioned that the credit unions were interested in registering federally and, as such, providing an alternative to the national banks.

Who has asked for this legislation? What are his projections as to how many credit unions will take him up on this offer and expand it across the country to compete with the banks?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to be very truthful, I am not sure how many credit unions will take us up on this but there is a number.

This came from our consultations with Canadians. Credit unions came to us and asked to be regulated federally so they could expand their operations to encourage more members.

Credit unions in our country are a great success story. They are membership owned. We have encouraged that. This is an opportunity for them to participate. One of the issues we faced when we were in our cross-country consultations prior to budget 2009 was access to credit. That was one of the most critical issues for individuals and for businesses. The more ways we can provide credit all across the country, the better it is for the employers to create more jobs in the country.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for the fine work he has been doing for the Minister of Finance, not only today but in the committee as well. He is a great leader in committee.

The budget is titled, “Leading the Way on Jobs and Growth”. Would the parliamentary secretary comment on this? This past weekend we heard the Leader of the Opposition talk about increasing corporate taxes. Why is increasing corporate taxes the wrong approach and why is not included in this budget?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I, as well, would like to thank the hon. member for Burlington for his great work on the committee.

The member travelled to more cities in our prebudget tour than I had the opportunity to. He has a great reflection of what is happening across the country. I know he has heard what would happen if the businesses in his riding faced higher taxes.

The Liberals came back from their spenders' conference and said that they would raise taxes if they became government. They are claiming that they are going to stop the fall in taxes. Anyone who has sat in the House knows that this tax cut has already been legislated. If the Liberals got their way, God forbid, look out Canada, higher taxes.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did attend the briefing yesterday.

I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary a question. We have virtually an omnibus bill, which has many items that are not in the budget. One of the things we did not see any language on or hear about last night was the new imposition of the 31.5% tax on income trusts.

Could the parliamentary secretary explain to the House and all Canadians what changes have been made to the Income Tax Act to give effect to that tax and when did they happen?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know it has been a busy week, but I believe it was two nights ago when the hon. member joined us. It cannot have been last night. I know we have had such fun at those briefings.

This government has cut over 100 taxes since we took office in 2006. That has been a focus, because we understand that by cutting taxes, it creates a fairer tax regime for all Canadians.