House of Commons Hansard #183 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was nation.

Topics

Canadian HeritageOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Oak Ridges—Markham Ontario

Conservative

Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage

Mr. Speaker, as I have said several times in the House, our government has made unprecedented investments in the cultural sector, including the War of 1812 exhibit.

It also includes a new Museum of Canadian History, with a $25 million investment that the NDP members have already said that they will be voting against. Every time we have made investments in arts and culture, they have voted against it.

Through the leadership of the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, we have brought in a new Copyright Act, which is protecting our artists and unleashing the potential of our entertainment software industry. We are proud of our artists and we wish they would start talking—

Canadian HeritageOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North.

HealthOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Independent

Bruce Hyer Independent Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON

Mr. Speaker, today, grandmother Wendy Hoy arrived at Parliament after walking 800 kilometres from her home. She walked to raise awareness about the risks of unsafe levels of radiation. We are all surrounded today by devices, such as cellphone towers, WiFi and even smart meters. Studies have shown that excessive radiation poses health risks.

When will the government finally take action on the health committee's 2010 recommendations to protect the safety of Canadians?

HealthOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Cypress Hills—Grasslands Saskatchewan

Conservative

David Anderson ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board

Mr. Speaker, obviously the health and safety of Canadians is a priority of this government. Canadians are well served by a strong independent regulator who is free from political interference and continues to regulate the nuclear industry in this country.

Business of the HouseOral Questions

November 22nd, 2012 / 3:05 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise on behalf of the official opposition to ask the government what it has planned for the House for the remainder of this week and next week.

The government seems to have lost control of the legislative wheel this week. I will review for Canadians. The Conservatives tried unsuccessfully to ram Bill C-27 through. Thankfully, the official opposition took a principled stand against this and forced them to step back from shutting down the debate. The finance committee has rewritten its own ridiculous rules on how to deal with the Conservatives' monster budget bill, Bill C-45. The committee is now sitting around the clock to deal with this sham of a process, which the Conservative government has set up.

Yesterday, instead of standing up for victims of bullying, most government members shamefully decided to side with the aggressors who bully and torment Canada's most vulnerable young people.

It was a shameful demonstration of the importance the Conservatives attach to their partisan principles, at the expense of common sense.

I guess the only question I have for the government today is the following: How many more abuses of our democratic processes does the government have planned for this week and the one to follow?

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

York—Simcoe Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, it is true that we have experienced some disruptions yesterday and today as a result of efforts by the Liberal Party to disrupt our agenda. I was puzzled as to why it was happening right now at this time. However, a news story just broke, which gave me some insight into it, where the young member for Papineau said that:

Canada isn't doing well right now because it's Albertans who control our community and socio-democratic agenda. It doesn't work....

When he was asked if Canada would be better served if Quebeckers were in charge rather than Albertans, he said:

I'm a Liberal, so of course I think so.... Certainly when we look at the great prime ministers of the 20th century, those that really stood the test of time, they were MPs from Quebec... This country--Canada--it belongs to us.

Obviously, the Liberals do not want to see the Conservatives governing, advancing our agenda or advancing our budgetary agenda. Therefore, I think that answers the NDP House leader's question as to why we are facing these delays right now in the House. However, we will carry on, Albertans and all, and the rest of the country, with Conservatives from coast to coast in this government trying to advance the agenda that Canadians believe in.

We will resume the second reading debate on Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, this afternoon. Tomorrow we will conclude report stage of Bill C-27, the first nations financial transparency act, and third reading will take place on Tuesday. We will start second reading debate of Bill C-47, the northern jobs and growth act, on Monday and the debate will continue on Wednesday.

The finance committee is working very hard to go through Bill C-45, the jobs and growth act. I commend them for their efforts. Our budget implementation legislation contains important measures, such as extending the hiring credit for small businesses, expanding tax relief for investment and clean energy, helping Canadians save for retirement with pooled registered pension plans and improving the registered disability savings plan.

However, I do confess that it does not include the NDP's carbon tax or its proposal for a 1% GST increase. Perhaps that is why its members are opposing it. In any event, we hope to start report stage consideration of Bill C-45 on Thursday, if at some point the Liberals give up on their disruptive delay objective and agree to allow someone other than the member for Papineau to have some say in running the country.

Bill C-377—Income Tax ActPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding Bill C-377, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (requirements for labour organizations), introduced by the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale.

The official opposition has not risen on a point of order on this bill until now. However, the question of new spending was raised during consideration of the bill in committee, and I now want to draw my colleagues' attention to this matter.

In my opinion, Bill C-377 contains provisions that will require new spending for purposes that are currently not authorized by the legislation, and it should therefore be accompanied by a royal recommendation. Under Standing Order 79, the House cannot pass an appropriation bill if it is not accompanied by a royal recommendation.

In House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, which I read every night, O'Brien and Bosc state that two types of bills give Parliament spending authority and that they both must be accompanied by a royal recommendation. Bill C-377 is of the second type, namely “bills that authorize new charges for purposes not anticipated in the Estimates”. O'Brien and Bosc specify that the charge imposed must be “new and distinct”. In other words, it must not be covered elsewhere by some more general authorization.

Clause 1 of Bill C-377 states that:

...the information contained in the public information return referred to in subsection 149.01(2) shall be made available to the public by the Minister, including publication on the departmental Internet site in a format that allows for word searches to be performed and for cross-referencing of data.

These provisions require the expenditure of public funds in a manner and for purposes not currently authorized. That means that “new and distinct” funds must be authorized to give the Canada Revenue Agency the means to manage this work, which is also “new and distinct”. Even in the most recent supplementary estimates, which were tabled a few weeks ago, there is nothing about the costs related to the work required by this bill. There is nothing to show that, when the supplementary estimates were published, the Canada Revenue Agency had already planned for this bill to become a law.

By way of proof that these costs are new and unauthorized, it is important to note that the Canada Revenue Agency has never participated in the preparation of financial reports for unions or union-related organizations. Furthermore, before the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act was amended, it required unions to produce financial reports, but this directive was given to the Chief Statistician of Canada, not the Canada Revenue Agency. The Canada Revenue Agency has thus never been responsible for managing this type of process for the unions.

During the debate at second reading of Bill C-377, the bill's sponsor suggested that the provisions of the bill were similar to those that have been in place for charities since 1977. The information requested from charities is dealt with by the Canada Revenue Agency and has nothing to do with the information requested from unions in Bill C-377. It is not comparable.

The rules for charities require them to disclose much less information and require the agency to share a great deal less data. Yet, this program alone costs over $33 million a year and employs over 300 full-time workers. If Bill C-377 is passed, the Canada Revenue Agency will have to create a new branch that will make up a whole new complex layer of government bureaucracy. A new entity will have to be created to administer and enforce the provisions of this new bill.

Furthermore, the bill is written in such a way as to include all labour organizations and all labour trusts, or almost 25,000 filers in total. It is obvious that there will be costs associated with training labour officials who are unfamiliar with all the new forms and, more importantly, costs associated with processing these returns from the 25,000 filers. None of these costs are included in costs forecast by the Canada Revenue Agency. These are “new and distinct” costs, the condition for a royal recommendation for a bill, as I mentioned earlier when quoting O'Brien and Bosc.

It is definitely important to discuss the new costs that will be incurred by the Canada Revenue Agency as a result of Bill C-377, but it is equally important that we discuss the extent of these costs. In committee, Professor John Logan, of San Francisco State University, compared this bill to the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, created in 1959 in the United States.

This law provides for a similar reporting system that requires labour organizations to produce annual financial reports for the U.S. Department of Labor. The requirements for the returns under Bill C-377 are more detailed and complex than those in the U.S. Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act.

Thus, we can expect that Bill C-377 will result in the same ongoing costs as those incurred under the U.S. law, if not higher costs. For fiscal 2011, the U.S. Office of Labor-Management Standards received reports from almost 25,000 U.S. labour organizations—about the same as in Canada—with a budget of $41.3 million.

Finally, the provision of Bill C-377 requiring the minister to make the information collected available to the public will also give rise to new expenditures. The departmental Internet site does not presently allow for cross-referencing of data, which is required by clause 1 of the bill. The government will therefore have to invest in an expensive computer system that can handle tens of thousands of separate returns covering thousands of distinct transactions.

For all of these reasons, it is clear that the provisions in Bill C-377 require the unauthorized spending of public money for unauthorized purposes and that the bill must therefore have a royal recommendation.

Mr. Speaker, to make it easier for you to examine this important issue, I will provide the testimony given during the Standing Committee on Finance's study of Bill C-377. I want to point out that the Canada Revenue Agency received an order from the Standing Committee on Finance to answer questions regarding new and distinct funds. I strongly believe that its answers will prove beyond doubt that Bill C-377 requires a royal recommendation. I will send you those responses as soon as they are available.

By putting this bill in the hands of the backbench member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, the government is shirking its responsibility. So far, the government has done nothing but make a series of mistakes.

Mr. Speaker, you will recall that you have already had to withdraw one of this member's private member's bills from the order paper in response to a convincing point of order from the official opposition last fall, with which you agreed.

In light of the testimony we heard in committee, there is little doubt that this bill absolutely requires a royal recommendation if it comes back to the House for a vote at third reading.

I think that the government must either admit that this bill flagrantly undermines Canadian workers across the country or throw it in the legislative garbage can, where it belongs.

Bill C-377—Income Tax ActPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:20 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's intervention with great interest. While I can say that the government profoundly rejects his contention that Bill C-377 would obligate the government to more spending initiatives, I do wish to say that we will take his intervention under advisement and I wish to let you know, Mr. Speaker, that we would make a more detailed response at our earliest opportunity, after we have had a chance to consider his remarks today.

I would also suggest that the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale would also like to make a detailed response since he is the sponsor of Bill C-377. I will be advising him that he should be able to do so in short order as well.

We look forward to discussing this in more detail at a future date.

Bill C-377—Income Tax ActPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:20 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, this is a small follow-up for my friend.

I realize the government needs some time to consider my friend's intervention and the fact that there are costs associated to a bill, which is quite significant to whether a bill can be heard and recommended as a private member's bill rather than a government piece of legislation.

We would only urge the government and the member who has sponsored the bill that urgency is required, simply because of the legislative process that we are now in, which allows you and your office, Mr. Speaker, to make that determination. We hope that there is no delay forthcoming in realizing that. There is a clock that has been started on this piece of legislation and that cannot be altered very easily.

Bill C-377—Income Tax ActPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise my colleague, the chief opposition House leader, and all members, that we do recognize the urgency. We do realize the clock is ticking, as the member said. We understand when the next time is that the bill will be debated in private members' hour, so I can assure the members opposite that we will be dealing with this expeditiously.

Bill C-377—Income Tax ActPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I thank all hon. members for their interventions today and look forward to further arguments being made in the near future.

Bill C-377—Income Tax ActPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend, the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor rose to speak. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 62, I move:

That the member be now heard.

Bill C-377—Income Tax ActPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Bill C-377—Income Tax ActPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Bill C-377—Income Tax ActPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Bill C-377—Income Tax ActPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Bill C-377—Income Tax ActPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

All those opposed will please say nay.

Bill C-377—Income Tax ActPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Bill C-377—Income Tax ActPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #507

Points of OrderOral Questions

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I declare the motion defeated.

The House resumed from November 1 consideration of the motion that Bill S-2, An Act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

London North Centre Ontario

Conservative

Susan Truppe ConservativeParliamentary Secretary for Status of Women

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act. This legislation proposes to fill a legislative void that has harmed women, men, children and families living on reserves for far too long. Bill S-2 would provide individuals living on reserves the similar matrimonial real property rights and protections as other Canadians living off reserve. Recognizing the diversity of first nations, it would empower communities to develop their own culturally-specific matrimonial real property laws.

The proposed legislation is informed by many years of study, consultation and debate. It builds on previous attempts to enact similar legislation and was substantially altered before its introduction in Parliament to further strengthen the bill and facilitate the development of first nation laws in this area. Bill S-2 would provide an opportunity to finally put in place a legislative solution to a very real problem. Each delay in its passage results in the continued denial of protections and rights for individuals living on reserves.

I now move:

That this question be now put.

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments by the parliamentary secretary. I think there may be some need to continue having some dialogue. She made reference to the updating of the legislation and how important it is. Whenever we are dealing with the concerns of first nations in particular, we in the Liberal Party try as much as possible to encourage consultation prior to the actual drafting of legislation. I do not believe the member made any reference to anything she might have done prior to the drafting and introduction of the legislation.

It would be very beneficial for House members if the parliamentary secretary could provide some details on which first nations she might have consulted and, in particular, which leaders in the first nation communities she consulted. It would be very appreciated if she could elaborate on that.

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Susan Truppe Conservative London North Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, in 2005, the Government of Canada embarked on a consultation process in partnership with national aboriginal organizations.

To promote transparency, the government provided the Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada with $2.7 million each to facilitate consultation, and more than 100 consultation sessions were held in 76 sites across the country. In total, more than $8 million were spent on the consultation process. Hundreds of people, most of them residents of the first nations communities, took part in this process. Their feedback directly influenced the content of the legislation now before us.

Some claimed that there was not enough consultation but, frankly, this issue has been discussed for more than 25 years and it is now time to act. How much more time does everyone want? Every delay is an injustice that negatively impacts women, men and children living on reserves.