Debates of Oct. 25th, 2012

Question No. 862

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

With regard to Human Resources and Skills Development Canada’s Targeted Initiative for Older Workers (TIOW): (a) how many clients have been served, for all provinces, since the program was created; (b) what is the program’s total cost to date; (c) what amounts were directed toward older workers in the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot (i) for the year 2007, (ii) for the year 2008, (iii) for the year 2009, (iv) for the year 2010, (v) for the year 2011, (vi) for the year 2012; (d) which programs support older workers who do not live in an eligible community; and (e) what are the impacts of the changes to employment insurance on TIOW following the 2012 federal budget announcements?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 869

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

With regard to the Direct Lending Program of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, for each fiscal year from 2005-2006 to 2012-2013: (a) what was the total annual expenditure; (b) how many projects received loans annually; (c) what proportion of projects were for First Nations projects and what proportion were for social housing projects; (d) how many new units of housing were constructed annually; (e) broken down by year, how many applications for funding were (i) presented, (ii) accepted, (iii) denied; (f) how long were applications accepted for each year; (g) on which date were decisions for funding made each year; (h) what criteria were used to decide where funding will be allocated and who made the decision; (i) at what stage of the construction project were funds paid out; (j) how many projects did not reach that stage of construction by the end of fiscal year 2010-2011 and what happened to their funding; (k) what are the reporting requirements once funds have been received; (l) what happens with the funds from repaid loans; and (m) how many loans have defaulted.

(Return tabled)

Question No. 870

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

With regard to the working group with representatives from the provinces, territories and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation that is charged with examining the financial viability of the existing social housing stock as operating agreements expire: (a) with regard to its membership and its mandate, (i) who determines the group’s membership, (ii) how many people are on the working group, (iii) what are the names and official titles of each person currently sitting on the working group, which province or territory are they from and what organization do they represent, (iv) what are the names and official titles of each person who previously sat on the working group, which province or territory are they from and what organization did they represent, (v) what is this working group’s mandate; (b) with regard to its meetings, (i) what is on the agenda, (ii) how often do the meetings take place, (iii) what are the criteria for evaluating the financial viability of the existing social housing stock as operating agreements expire, (iv) if members disagree, how are decisions made; (c) for each social housing unit that has already been evaluated for viability by the working group, (i) what is its name, (ii) in which province or territory is it located, (iii) what decision was made regarding its viability, (iv) what criteria supported the decision that was made for each of these social housing units; (d) for each social housing unit that has not yet been evaluated for viability by the working group, (i) what is its name, (ii) in which province or territory is it located, (iii) when will the working group evaluate its viability; and (e) with regard to the results published by the working group, (i) what are the names and titles of the reports that have already been published or will be published and what are their publication dates, (ii) what organization released or will release these reports, (iii) will these reports be made public and, if so, when?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Bill C-45—Time Allocation Motion

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

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, not more than four further sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the bill; and that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the fourth day allotted to the consideration of the second 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 said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period.

I would ask hon. members to try to keep their questions or comments to about a minute and the response to a similar length of time.

As we have been doing for some time now, we will treat this like question period with more questions being given to the opposition parties, but the government will have some opportunities throughout the rotation.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for that direction. I hope it is not too much like question period in the sense that when we ask a question of the government, we might get an actual answer. Hope springs eternal.

I am just going to quote my hon. friend across the way, the government House leader, who just last week said, “I look forward to a vigorous policy debate on the economy and not on procedural games”. Yet the first thing the government chooses to do today is to play procedural games.

There are two questions being put before the House. One is time allocation, closure, shutting down debate on this omnibus budget bill and the second is something the Conservatives used to decry when the Liberals did it. They are ramming together a whole bunch of issues, which have nothing to do with the budget at all. The Navigable Waters Protection Act has been getting some obvious attention. An environmental protection act that was used to protect Canada's environment from things like pipeline leaks is now rammed into a budget bill.

If my hon. friend across the way said he was looking forward to a debate and not procedural games, then why is it that the first thing the government has chosen to do is to use procedural games to shut down debate on such a massive 450-page omnibus budget bill, which the government admits contains so many things that were not in the budget. In fact, the Minister of Transport had to delete web pages in the middle of the night that referred to the Navigable Waters Protection Act as an act that actually protects the environment. That was not in the budget despite what the international affairs minister says. He says, “Look on page 282. There it is in black and white”, but we look and it is not there.

I am wondering where those principles and scruples that the Conservatives used to have about some basic democratic values went. Those fundamentals said that the House of Commons should hold the government to account, that the budget is the major document the government moves every year and that it is the duty and responsibility of all MPs, not just those in opposition but in government, to hold the government to account. The first thing the Conservatives do is play a procedural game by shutting down debate in this place, prematurely, on such an important document as the budget.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Minister of State (Finance)]

Mr. Speaker, I do hope that the next 30 minutes will not be filled with just questions about process. There is a lot more happening here fundamentally about democracy. We recognize that we are in extenuating circumstances. We are part of a global recovery and we all realize that. The budget that was tabled on March 29 is a continuation of our plan for jobs and growth, our plan for getting back to balance in the medium term. We are putting forward a comprehensive budget implementation act and we recognize that it needs to be discussed.

That is why we need to move it past this phase where the opposition tends to just talk about process. All we are asking for is to send the bill to committee expeditiously. We are going to spread it across 11 committees and that motion will be moved as soon as it is appropriate in a committee process. We want to get the bill to committee so that people can have some input into this, witnesses can be called on all different facets of this comprehensive piece of legislation and we can hear them out and move forward with what is necessary.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring up an example of a matter that deserves more consideration in this chamber before it goes to committee. That is the matter of the reduction of certain tax credits related to scientific research and experimental development. This is hundreds of millions of dollars in tax credits that is going away. If I were in a hurry I would probably do something that people on the other side of the floor would do, which would be to call this a tax increase since it is the elimination of a tax credit. I am sure the government would not want me to do that. This is a good example of something that has a rather complicated effect on businesses and something that affects hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes that would now be paid by businesses in Canada every year.

As a result of its size and because of its complexity and because of its importance to the economic future of this country, I believe that this legislation is an example of something that deserves more discussion in this chamber before it goes to committee.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point I was trying to make. Too often in here we hear discussions about process. The hon. member is correct. This is a complex improvement to the scientific research and experimental development tax credit. It is very important that we get this to committee, so we can actually talk about it and have witnesses come forward who actually understand this. I would argue that probably most members of Parliament could not explain how the SR&ED program actually works. It is a well-functioning program.

In my private life previous to politics, I was involved in SR&ED tax credits. They are very effective. They work well for innovators in the country. However, we heard from the Jenkins panel that we could do it better. That is what we are trying to do. It is a reflection of what Tom Jenkins had suggested to us as improvements. Let us get it to committee and talk about it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State said that we must not boil things down to just process.

The government has just moved a time allocation motion, another means of shutting down parliamentary debate. The motion is about process, and that is nothing new for this government. Closure, prorogation and omnibus bills are all types of processes that the government uses to weaken the democratic framework in which we are supposed to work.

The Minister of State told us again that all they want to do is send the bill to committee as quickly as possible in order to study it. Canada is a parliamentary democracy with a clear parliamentary process: we have automatic first reading of a bill, and then second reading of the bill that members are supposed to do here in the House of Commons, before it can be studied in more detail by the Standing Committee on Finance and other committees, which the government is going to let happen, for once.

We currently have a problem. As was the case in June with Bill C-38, we will have an expedited debate and, even though the bill is going to be studied by various committees, we will not have the opportunity to give due consideration to the different elements of this omnibus bill that could be split off and passed independently.

The Minister of State was boasting about Bill C-38 and said that more than 150 witnesses had appeared before the committee, which sat for more than 75 hours. I would like to remind members that Bill C-38 covered 70 laws that were amended, added or rescinded. That comes down to two witnesses per law, whereas we generally hear from 15 to 20, and about one hour per law being amended.

Therefore, I would like to know why the government is using closure, omnibus bills and prorogation to water down the parliamentary work we were elected to do, as representatives of our constituents here in the House.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, all members, who are members of the committees where the budget implementation bill will be sent, will have ample opportunity to speak to the experts who can bring topics to each one of these committees. That is exactly what we want to see.

As I suggested earlier, once again we have a process question, when we could actually be spending time talking about the substance of the bill. That is not good use of the House's time. We should actually be talking about the good things that are in the bill. We should be talking about the continuation of this plan, a plan that has actually seen us grow jobs in the country, more than 820,000 net new jobs since the end of the recession. That is a good number.

Obviously the plan is heading in the right direction. This is just a continuation of that plan. Let us move forward, get it to committee and discuss it at length.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting to hear the Minister of State say that members of Parliament are not necessarily experts and that we must hear from experts in committee.

What does he think about the fact that we speak on behalf of our constituents? We are experts on conveying the wishes of the people we represent. Our constituents deserve to have us speak on their behalf here in the House.

When the budget was tabled, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster read numerous emails, tweets and Facebook messages, among other things. That is how he shared the opinions of the public. I do not want to take anything away from the experts who testify in committee, but that is just one part of the parliamentary process. As my colleague pointed out, the most important part of this process is when we have the opportunity to do what we are doing now: rise in the House to represent the wishes of the people who elected us. I had the opportunity to speak to Bill C-38, and I was able to share what my constituents thought. No, these people are not experts, but we are accountable to them and we are here to represent them.

The Minister of State is dismissing the parliamentary process, when it is very important here. What is the purpose of Parliament if there is no parliamentary process? Is it a dictatorship? This process is the very essence of democracy, legislation and fundamental rights in a society. If the Minister of State thinks that this process is not important, I suggest that he find another profession, because I do not think he is in the right field.

When will the members opposite respect the parliamentary process? When will they recognize that we are here to speak on behalf of other experts—the people we represent?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the point about the discussions here. They are valid discussions, but each member of the House is a de facto member, an alternate member, of all these committees where this piece of legislation would go. Therefore, they would have ample opportunity for some in-depth discussion with those witnesses who wish to come and speak to the pros and cons of all these suggestions and what is in this legislation. To take advantage of the time we have here, I would encourage the members to ask questions about what the benefits are with respect to this legislation we are putting forward.

The hiring tax credit is one example about which I was hoping someone would ask me. We put it in last year's budget for small businesses, and it is very effective. More than half a million businesses were able to take advantage of it. If we can get the bill through, we are projecting that 536,000 more businesses will be able to take advantage of it, and perhaps the same businesses. That is a $200 million benefit to small businesses in this country. I bet we will have some witnesses come forward to say that is good.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the government should be ashamed of itself, because once again it moved time allocation on a very important piece of legislation, which ultimately would have a profound impact and which encompasses many changes with respect to other pieces of legislation that should have been introduced in a separate fashion.

This is part two of a previous government budget bill. Canadians do want to ensure that there is legitimate debate, but unfortunately the government has chosen to deny that.

I will provide a classic example. At a time when we are losing services for immigrants and the unemployed, and so many thousands of jobs are being lost, in the same year we have the government increasing the size of the House of Commons. It will be creating 30 new seats for members of Parliament at a time when we are having serious cutbacks in terms of services for real Canadians. That is all about bad priorities.

Unfortunately, even the New Democrats are supporting increasing the number of members of Parliament. That is why it will be up to the Liberal Party to ensure that the government recognizes what is important and what the priorities are when it comes to immigration services, unemployment services and so forth.

My question to the government is this. Why has it decided to once again bring in time allocation to try to expedite the bill and deny the opportunity for true accountability inside the House of Commons by bundling it and then rushing it through in an undemocratic fashion?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that was a bit of a wandering question, much of it not even part of the discussion of the budget implementation act—in fact most of it, I would suggest.

Talking about representation, this is our opportunity to represent our constituents. This is our opportunity for all members of Parliament to talk about what the benefits are and what more we can do to help our constituents. I talked previously about the $1,000 hiring credit for small businesses, which is very effective.

We are improving the registered disability savings plan in this budget implementation act. It is a very effective program and very helpful to families who have disabled members, whether they are children or adults. We have found some ways to enhance that. We have been communicating with the provinces. There have been some challenges to get the financial institutions the authorities they need to make sure the money stays with the family member. We have been working on that and we found some solutions. That is part of this. Let us talk about something like that.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of State for Finance for taking the time today to be part of this great discussion. I agree that we need to focus on what is really going to be important in this bill.

In my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, it is basically rural and small businesses. Small businesses employ around 50% of the people in Canada. What are most of the businesses in Canada, in the high 90%? They are small businesses. In budget 2011, we brought in the hiring credit for small businesses. It is deemed to have been successful and in this bill there is an extension of that hiring credit for small business.

I know you have talked about it, Mr. Minister, and I am wondering if you could again talk about the significance of it in this country, not only in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex but for small businesses that are, quite honestly, the engine of this country.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I would remind all members to address their questions to the Chair.

The hon. minister of state.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague and friend for raising a very important issue. I know he works hard with the small businesses in his riding. Most of us have heard from small businesses that this has actually helped them. This will provide, as I said before, an opportunity for some 536,000 businesses across this country to hire new Canadians to continue with the job growth, a job growth that I would remind all hon. members is the strongest job recovery growth in the G7. We are expecting to be among the strongest growth in the economy, but this is the strongest job recovery in the entire G7. We have recovered all of the jobs lost and the economic loss as well. It was through policies such as this.

This is an innovative policy that was put forward on a temporary basis. We cannot continue it until it is legislated. Let us get it to committee, approve it, legislate it and provide businesses the opportunity to hire more Canadians.

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, many of us on this side are commenting about the unfortunate way these omnibus budget bills are going forward, in a hypocritical manner.

In the last election, I remember the newly re-elected Prime Minister making a promise to Canadians in the media. He did not use the words “false majority”, but given that he got only 39% of the popular vote, therefore he has a false majority. He promised to represent not only that 39% but all Canadians, the two-thirds who did not vote for him as well. Yet today we have evidence that is not happening. We are having inadequate debate because Conservatives feel they have a majority and can rush through whatever they want.

I would like the hon. member to explain why the Conservatives, the Prime Minister and he are not adequately representing all Canadians on these important issues.