Debates of Oct. 23rd, 2013

Second Reading

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we again find ourselves with another omnibus budget bill, the second one which the current administration of the government claims to be related to the budget of 2012. Yet there are many provisions, one in particular, that could not possibly be related to the budget. That is the change to the Supreme Court Act because the difficulty encountered with the appointment of Mr. Justice Nadon only occurred after the Conservatives put forward the budget, so that makes a mockery of the idea that this is a budgetary matter.

However, certainly there are the changes to the Canada Labour Code, as my friend referenced, the systematic attempt to attack fundamental collective bargaining rights and labour rights. I am troubled by what the impact would be on the individual worker, and every worker has the right to refuse dangerous work. The definition of “danger” has been quite watered down and would no longer, for instance, protect the worker from exposure to a threat that could create a chronic health hazard or a threat to reproductive health.

Does my friend have any comments on that?

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we should not be surprised, but nonetheless every now and then the Conservatives throw one at us and we wonder what they are thinking, as is certainly the one with the Supreme Court reference in it.

In our country, our system is based on three pillars: judicial, administrative and legislative. For the Conservatives to take the highest court in the land and to tweak something that impacts on that court through a budget bill is a first, I am sure. I am sure many are amazed at that particular one.

I do not know the answer to that direct question, though. If the Conservatives pick these fights through these omnibus bills to divert Canadians' attention away from some of the scandals that are going on, such as members of their caucus being charged by Elections Canada or what is going on in the Senate, we opposition members, including I am sure my colleagues in the NDP, would say to break those bills out from the omnibus bill and let us have a discussion. If the planets line up, maybe they could even take some kind of an amendment to improve the legislation. That would be a rare day. I would go out and buy Insta Piks that day because the planets would be aligned.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Cape Breton—Canso for his speech. I travelled to his beautiful region last summer.

Once more, we see the government using an omnibus bill to amend legislation related to employment and labour relations. These pieces of legislation have nothing whatsoever to do with budget implementation.

Last time, the government attacked construction workers by eliminating the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, which guaranteed some trades a minimum wage on federal work sites.

The government is doing the same thing again by meddling in how essential workers are defined, something that was previously negotiated between employers and unions.

Now, the Conservatives are going to impose a definition like petty dictators, limiting the legal right to strike for many workers in public service jobs. On top of that, they are slashing arbitration, which will drive other workers to strike.

I would like to know whether my colleague feels the government wants to force workers to go on strike so that it can then force them back to work with other special laws.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I sat beside my colleague in the hearings on Bill C-377. I know he is very passionate and very capable on labour issues. We heard witness after witness give testimony. We saw none of that reflected in the final report on that bill. It is when ideology really trumps the needs of Canadians and Canadian workers that we all lose.

What is fearful, through the debate here today, is that the number of Canadians who are working for minimum wage has doubled under the current government. The Conservatives are intent on driving wages down in our country, hollowing out the middle class, and it is unions that have really contributed to developing a middle class. It is egregious and it is shameful.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we recognize the member for York Centre on resuming debate, I would just let him know there are only three minutes remaining in the time allocated for government orders this afternoon. He can at least get started, and of course the remaining time will be available to him when the House next takes up debate on the question.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for York Centre.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, it is not the quantity of time but rather the quality, as the opposition has so aptly demonstrated to us.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to add my comments to the debate on Bill C-4. As my colleague has already so eloquently stated, we are proud of our government's achievements since the storm clouds first gathered over the global economy in 2008. Today, I will focus on the ways economic action plan 2013 helps strengthen Canada's economy in these uncertain times. Be assured, our government remains committed to what matters most to Canadians. That is jobs, job creation and economic growth.

First, our government firmly believes in helping small businesses grow. That is why we have lowered taxes and tariffs, cut red tape and improved conditions for small business. These steps have established a solid foundation that has allowed Canadian businesses to create jobs and drive economic growth. Indeed, by implementing Canada's economic action plan Canada has experienced one of the best economic performances among the G7 countries, both during the global recession and throughout the recovery.

Contrary to what the opposition leaders may believe, Canada is on strong economic footing. Since the depth of the recession over one million net new jobs have been created, most in high-wage industries. There are now 605,000 more jobs than at the pre-recession peak. This is the strongest job growth in G7 countries over the course of the recovery. Almost 90% of all jobs created since July of 2009 have been full-time positions with close to 85% of those being in the private sector. Also, growth levels are above pre-recession levels.

That is the best performance in the G7. Both the IMF and the OECD expect Canada to be among the strongest growing economies in the G7 over this year and next. The World Economic Forum has rated Canada's banking system as the world's soundest for the fifth year in a row. Three credit rating agencies, Moody's, Fitch, and Standard and Poor's, have all reaffirmed their top credit rating for Canada and expect it will maintain its triple-A rating in the year ahead. Canada's fiscal fundamentals are solid and they are sustainable.

However, to truly understand the strength behind this performance, one has to consider the hard work that took place long before, through the actions our government took to pay down debt, lower taxes, reduce red tape and promote free trade and innovation.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for York Centre will have 17 minutes remaining in his time when the House next resumes debate on the question.

It being 5:38 p.m., the House will proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood is not present to move the order as announced in today's notice paper. Accordingly, the bill will be dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

International Trade

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak on behalf of the official opposition New Democrats about the important news recently of the tentative agreement reached between Canada and the European Union regarding a comprehensive economic and trade agreement.

There has been a bit of confusion about the New Democrats' position on this issue, mainly because the Conservatives are attempting to confuse Canadians about the official opposition's position. I am going to talk a bit about that later on, because it does not help the debate on such an important issue in this country and it certainly does not speak well of the political process in this country when politicians are actively trying to mislead Canadians about positions of parties on such important subjects as this.

New Democrats welcome progress toward a comprehensive new trade agreement with the European Union. We believe in expanding and diversifying our trade relationships, particularly to reduce our dependence on the United States. As important as that relationship is, we believe it is healthy for our economy to have a diversified trade relationship with many different regions and countries around the world because we believe that is important for Canadians' economic security.

The NDP has long maintained that Canada should have deeper economic relations with the European Union. These are democratic countries with some of the highest environmental, safety, human rights, and labour standards in the world.

However, New Democrats have said all along that when it comes to trade deals, details matter. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have kept Parliament and Canadians in the dark throughout the negotiations. Talks have been conducted in unprecedented secrecy and with an unacceptable lack of transparency. Despite the recent announcement of a deal, the government still has not shared the text of this agreement with Canadians. In fact, we do not really have a deal yet; we have an agreement in principle, and as we speak right now, negotiations are still continuing in Europe over some of the substantive issues with this agreement. As any lawyer knows, an agreement to agree is no agreement at all.

Significant concerns have been raised by a number of stakeholders in Canada about a potential deal's possible effects on a range of Canadian interests: the future of Canada's dairy farmers, the ability of local governments to pursue economic development, the liability of taxpayers to international lawsuits by multinational corporations, the ability of government to legislate in the public interest, and increases in the cost of prescription drugs. These issues and others all remain big question marks.

We know that there are advantages and compromises in every negotiation. New Democrats will continue to take what we believe is the only responsible approach: we will wait until the full text of the agreement is released, we will analyze its contents carefully, and we will engage in wide consultations with a diverse range of stakeholders—stakeholders ignored by the government, including industry sectoral groups, labour, municipalities, academics, ordinary Canadians, and first nations—to find out what their views are about this agreement so that we can find out how this agreement may impact their interests.

The numbers that the Conservatives have been floating about growth in jobs and GDP as a result of CETA are at best speculative and at worse gross exaggerations. What is undeniable is that they are four years out of date and based on modelling that has been demonstrated to be unrealistic. For instance, for any Canadian watching, this modelling assumes that Canada has full employment, an unemployment rate of 0%. That is a ridiculous fiction in economic terms, and it shows why we have to be careful about the spin that is being applied by the government.

The Prime Minister has, charitably speaking, been having some serious problems with his credibility recently. When he stands up in the House and says the NDP is opposed to CETA when our position is that we will wait and see what the details are and make up our mind when we have a responsible examination of its impact, he is absolutely doing a disservice to this chamber and to the Canadian public.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in this House to address some of the concerns of the member for Vancouver Kingsway.

I would like to start off by welcoming the question and asking the member to be open-minded, because there are a lot of great things happening in this country, and the comprehensive economic and trade agreement with the European Union is one of them.

The Canada-European Union trade agreement is by far Canada's most ambitious and historic trade initiative, broader in scope and deeper in ambition than the North American Free Trade Agreement. It will open new markets to our exporters throughout the EU and will generate significant benefits for all Canadians.

Our Conservative government has made opening new markets through agreements like the Canada-Europe trade agreement a priority, just one way it is creating jobs and opportunities for Canadians in every region of this great country.

We have released a comprehensive overview that shows clearly that this is a good agreement that will generate significant benefits in every region of Canada and across key sectors of our economy. As with all trade agreements, technical and legal work remains. Our goal is to work as expeditiously as possible through the remaining steps, including ratification, so that Canadian workers and business can access the vast benefits as soon as possible.

The European Union, with its 28 member states, half a billion people, and annual economic activity of almost $17 trillion is the world's largest economy. A joint Canada-European Union study concluded that a trade agreement could boost Canada's income by $12 billion annually and bilateral trade by 20%. Put another way, the economic benefit of a far-reaching agreement would be the equivalent of creating almost 80,000 new jobs or increasing the average Canadian household's income by $1,000.

Of the EU's more than 9,000 tariff lines, approximately 98% will be duty-free for Canadian goods when CETA comes into force. European Union tariffs can be so high as to impose a real burden on Canadian exporters and limit considerably their ability to compete in the EU market.

I will just take a moment to give an example from my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla. A cherry farmer had sent his crop to a European Union country. He phoned me in quite a bit of distress, because the tariffs had risen dramatically. I think it was in the neighbourhood of 60-odd per cent plus. He was very concerned that he would lose his livelihood.

It is the role of government to make sure that we can deal with these things, to make sure that our growers, whether they be in the Okanagan Valley or right across this great country, can have access.

The member said he does not have the details. He does, but maybe he just has not taken the time to read them and appreciate the wide scope of this agreement. Almost 94% of agricultural tariff lines will be duty-free when this agreement comes into force, rising to 95% when it is fully implemented.

This is a great agreement. We are moving forward to create more opportunities for every sector across this great country, and I encourage the member opposite to be open-minded.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friends in the Conservative government listens to what the official opposition is saying, they would hear that we, in fact, are exactly open-minded. As for our position, once again stated for them, it is that we are optimistic and are willing to sign and support a good deal with the European Union. The question is whether this is a good deal.

Trade deals are not inherently good or bad. The government could sign a horrendously bad trade agreement. It could sign an excellent trade agreement. It depends on the details, particularly with an agreement that is touted as the most comprehensive and largest trade agreement in Canadian history. Some 28 or 29 chapters of very dense technical information is not something that can be evaluated without understanding the details.

It is like the government selling Canadians a car and talking about how wonderful a car it is, how fast it can go, and all the great features it has, but it will not let Canadians look under the hood or take it for a spin. Nobody would buy a car on those grounds. Nobody is going to accept the agreement on those grounds.

The New Democrats will be open-minded. We will look at this in good faith. We will wait to see the text of this agreement and will evaluate it and consult with Canadians to determine if it is of net benefit to Canada. If it is, we will support it. If it is not, we will not.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear that the NDP is open-minded.

I want to come back to the member's original points and his statement that it was this side of the House that was being misleading on the NDP position. On the day this agreement came out, the NDP was against it; now it is for it, and in between it was not sure about what its position was.

We have released a comprehensive overview that shows clearly that this is a very good agreement that will generate significant benefits in every region of our great country and across key sectors of our economy. The NDP just cannot see these benefits. It is blinded by its anti-trade ideology. Canadians will not be fooled; they know the NDP's track record on trade.

I will go back to my area of Okanagan—Coquihalla. When the North American free trade agreement first came in, or its predecessor, the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, let us bear in mind that there were some vintners who literally said it was going to ruin the B.C. wine industry and ruin the Canadian wine industry and that we should pull out our grapes.

Some people bought into the naysayers, but some people saw it as an opportunity for Canada to compete on the international stage. Now when we look at our industry here in this country, we are very proud of Canadian wines. There is opportunity just like that today in the European Union.

Intergovernmental Relations

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I really appreciate about the House is that we have this procedure after hours to be able to do a bit of a follow-through on question period. It is something that I would love to see other legislatures pursue, in particular in my home province of Manitoba.

Having said that, yesterday I was afforded the opportunity to ask a question to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in regard some of the statements we hear from the government on some critically important issues here in Canada. The question I posed was on the principle of consistency.

In this particular case the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs was talking to francophone media in the province of Quebec, reflecting on the charter of values or even on the issue of the Clarity Act or Bill 99 in regard to a simple majority or a clear majority. The minister was saying one thing in one region of country; then we have other members of the government saying something different in other regions of the country.

It is really very important in normal situations to get the same consistent message out, whether it is to francophone media or anglophone media. That is the reason we chose to ask the question yesterday. In fact, one of my colleagues raised the issue first, and then I was able to follow it with a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister tried to give the impression that the government was giving one consistent answer. We would like to think that is in fact the case, but the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs still has not come forward and been as clear and decisive as the Prime Minister was in his answer.

This is why I wanted to be able to follow up on this issue. What we are talking about is national unity and human rights, that being the charter of values, and the comments by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in regard to that and in regard to the simple majority or 50% plus one in reference to the Clarity Act.

What I would ask as a follow-up to the government is for a very clear and relatively concise statement as to what the government's official position is, whether here in Ottawa or in whatever region of the country, coming from ministers, parliamentary secretaries, or members representing the government, on issues such as the charter of values and the Clarity Act. What is the government's perspective on a clear majority? I would be very interested in receiving a detailed response.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, certainly this is an issue that is before the courts. The Prime Minister said it best the other day when he said that the process for dividing the country is best left to the courts.

More importantly, we all believe on this side that debates on the process for dividing the country are best left to the courts. Everyone on this side, including the Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs, is an unconditional supporter of the unity of this great country.

I attend French lessons in the beautiful province of Quebec, and when I speak to people, they are very concerned about jobs and economic growth. They are concerned about their families. They are concerned about crime. When this government says that it is going to be focused on the priorities of Canadians, it means all Canadians, including Quebeckers. We are working hard on those issues, just as we are working hard on creating more opportunity and growth with the Canada-European Union free trade agreement we discussed earlier and on other matters before us.

I would invite the member opposite to accept my answer but also to join with us as we seek to make sure that every region of this great country, including his own riding, receives the benefits from that approach focused on the important issues of jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member recognizes the importance Canadians assign to having clear, decisive, strong leadership on important issues facing our country.

On the issue of the Clarity Act, for example, Liberals have been very clear that a clear majority would be necessary. We have been very clear on the issue of the charter of values. It is just not acceptable. Would the member not agree that there is a need for strong leadership from the Prime Minister's office and that the same message should be echoed in both languages, no matter what region of the country one happens to be living in or what media personality might be conducting an interview with a particular minister?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Again, Mr. Speaker, this government has worked very hard on the priorities of all Canadians. We believe in a strong, united Canada. We believe that our focus should be quite squarely on the economy, on creating opportunities, and on making sure that our families are safe on the streets.

I certainly welcome this discussion tonight, but I would again suggest that the member join with us in seeking to continue to serve Canadians' interests by focusing on their priorities, not waging referendums no one wants.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.)