Debates of Oct. 28th, 2013

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating my hon. colleague, whom I also like to count as friend, for her promotion. She is now within Privy Council.

I would be happy to support some of the parts of Bill C-4, such as the software that allows for fraud at point of sale. We should deal with that. However, would she not agree with me that it makes it very difficult for members of the opposition, who read such 300-plus page bills carefully, to vote for them when they are omnibus in nature and include many portions that I cannot possibly support, such as weakening the Canada Labour Code?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her congratulations. I look forward to working with her.

Every once in a while, as parliamentarians, we have to sit back and look where we are in our country. Certainly, we have passed a great deal of legislation in the House. However, when we look at some of our international partners and some of the legislative gridlock they face, we see what that means for their businesses. Our government sees clear action, tangible results and investment for business growth. This is a very positive thing, as is this legislation, and I certainly hope she will support it.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if it is a pleasure, but I want to stand and speak to the budget. After travelling throughout Random—Burin—St. George's for an extended season, thanks to the Prime Minister who chose to prorogue the House of Commons so we were not back here to deal with some of the issues raised in the budget, I learned from my constituents a lot of the issues they were dealing with and why they were having those problems. A lot of it points to the lack of leadership, I am told, by the Conservative government.

The reality is that my constituents continue to tell me that unless the leadership is there on issues, policies and programs that are controlled or maintained by the federal government and unless the federal government is more cognizant of issues of people who particularly live in rural communities, they will never get out of the bind in which they find themselves. When I met with them, as I do every weekend, but particularly over the extended period this summer, they asked me to bring forward their concerns to see if it were possible for the government to get its head out of the sand, start listening to Canadians from coast to coast to coast and recognize that some people were having difficult times and finding it hard to make ends meet. They asked me to bring forward their concerns, hoping the government would listen and would take their concerns into account.

My constituents are certainly not at all impressed when they look at the budget bill that has so much in it that it is hard for parliamentarians to decipher it and take the time needed to go through it bill by bill by bill. How can the government expect Canadians to do so, particularly those who live in rural communities, some of whom do not even have access to the Internet, some of whom have no way of finding out what is in the budget bill unless their members of Parliament convey and explain to them what it contains? At the same time, it is hard for members of Parliament to get the message across because there is so much in the budget.

Again, we see the Conservative government put forward a budget that does not take into account the concerns of Canadians, no matter where they live in our country. The budget implementation act and surrounding debate is further evidence that the government just does not get it. Rather than congratulating itself on mediocrity, the government should focus its efforts on ensuring families in Random—Burin—St. George's and the rest of Canada do not continue to struggle.

The fact that Canada's fiscal situation is better than that of Spain or Greece does not change the reality for those in my riding who are without jobs through no fault of their own, or those with adult children who have moved back home because there are no employment opportunities for them or they are underemployed and cannot afford to live independently.

At events throughout my riding, constituents have told me they are tired of being ignored by the Conservative government. They expect better, and so they should. Bill C-4, sadly, is just more of the same omnibus legislation that Canadians from coast to coast to coast have come to expect, but not accept from Conservatives out of touch with the real needs of people who try desperately to make ends meet, but find themselves falling behind because of the measures being enacted by the Conservative government.

At a time when the Bank of Canada is cutting its growth and inflation estimates across the board and warning “the risk of exacerbating already elevated household imbalances”, the government introduces legislation and uses rhetoric showing it is completely ambivalent to the fact that Canada's economic growth is rapidly slowing. After 18 consecutive months cautioning investors that the bank would soon be raising the interest rate from 1%, the Bank of Canada has been forced to drop the rate hike talk altogether to try to stimulate investment or risk compounding the weak economic outlook caused by the Conservative government.

The Bank of Canada even pushed back its projected target for Canada's economy to return to full production six months later than it had recently forecast. In fact, the Bank of Canada now predicts the economy will return to full production at the same time Canadians will return to power the Liberal government in 2015.

At a crucial point in Canada's economic future, the Conservative government has once again failed to put forward a budget implementation act to grow the economy and help create jobs.

For years, the Liberals have called on the government to freeze its scheduled employment insurance premium hikes. Finally, the Conservatives are reversing their ill-timed tax hikes on Canadian jobs, which would have made it more expensive for employers to hire those in need of work. While I am relieved the government has decided to heed the advice of the Liberals and freeze EI premiums for the next three years, after years of steadily increasing the costs workers and employers must pay into the program, freezing EI premiums for the next three years will not make up for the billions of dollars in increases the Conservatives forced on employees and employers to pay during this fragile economy.

If the Conservatives truly wanted to address the problems with employment insurance, which they created, they would have used Bill C-4 to reverse the punishing changes they made to the EI program last year. EI is still inaccessible to thousands of Canadians who need it, even though they paid into the program. Although this budget implementation act contains a number of provisions that were not in the initial budget document, such as many of the technical tax measures in part 1 of this act, it is telling the Conservatives to use Bill C-4 to take action to make EI more accessible to those who need the support.

Furthermore, the Conservative government has completely ignored the need to address the factors driving high unemployment and underemployment, as well as the need for improving skills training and education. The only time this budget addresses skills is when it changes the name of the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development to the Department of Employment and Social Development. This is a sign that the government is no longer interested in skills training.

There are still too many jobs without skilled Canadians to fill them and trying to push programs on provinces and employers without consultation will simply not result in the skills training needed. Canadians need a government committed to helping create jobs for Canadians, because it is a partnership. We do not expect the government to create all the jobs. We expect it to make it possible and create an environment where jobs can be created. They also need a government whose priority is to ensure Canadians receive the training they need to fill existing vacant jobs.

Not surprisingly, as I alluded to previously, this omnibus budget implementation act contains many changes that have nothing to do with budget 2013. It is a sad state of affairs when the Minister of Finance cannot even answer questions on his own legislation, instead opting to refer questions to other ministers because the government has squeezed so many disparate bills into Bill C-4, including major public service labour changes and modifications to the appointment of Supreme Court judges.

While the Minister of Finance claims this is, “the mechanics of government”, the truth is it is easier for the Conservatives to restrict debate and avoid scrutiny if they lump dozens of bills together, which has unfortunately become the hallmark of the government. When legislation is combined in this way to avoid transparency, mistakes are bound to happen. For example, this bill would fix an error in the last budget where the government mistakingly included a disincentive to fishermen working non-fishing jobs in the off season by discarding fishing income for the calculation of EI benefits for those who worked 421 hours or more in a non-fishing job.

As many members of the House prepare to attend Remembrance Day events in their ridings, we cannot allow the government's continued attack on veterans to go without proper scrutiny. Bill C-4 would cut the number of members sitting on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board from 29 to 25. What is worse, we know that under the Conservatives, only slightly more than 50% of board positions are presently filled. This board is tasked to “provide veterans and other applicants with an independent avenue of appeal for disability decisions made by Veterans Affairs Canada”. From time to time, far too many veterans know first hand that Veterans Affairs Canada makes mistakes it has to review.

That will continue as long as the government refuses to acknowledge the fact that services are being cut to the most vulnerable in our country, and it does not matter what part of the country we live in, but particularly to those in our rural communities. While services and programs are being cut, Canadians are being made to suffer.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could provide some additional comment on the manner in which the government has brought budget bills, implementation bills, before the House, where it has introduced numerous pieces of legislation that should not be a part of the budget bill. Ultimately, I would argue, that the government is bringing in other legislation through the back door of a budget bill. This is the wrong way to bring in legislation, because it denies the opportunity to have a good, thorough debate on what should be individual pieces of legislation.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, that has been raised throughout my riding, particularly when I go to an event and people are asking me what is in the budget. I do not have the kind of time it would take to explain to them what is in this particular budget and still have time to spend talking about other issues.

The reality is that these omnibus budgets have become the hallmark of this particular government. It has to change, because no parliamentarian has time to review every aspect of the budget. When the Conservatives lump changes to labour and changes that deal with the appointment of Supreme Court judges into a budget bill, it raises questions about what exactly the government is about. However, people know what the government is about. It is about hiding so that we cannot possibly know the ins and outs of what is in the budget because it is so large.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great intent to the speech that my hon. colleague from Newfoundland just presented. She spent quite a bit of time talking about EI premiums. There is always a discussion among Canadians as to whether it was actually $57 billion or $58 billion that the previous Liberal government took out of the EI fund when it was in power.

I wonder if she could clarify that number. Was it $58 billion or $57 billion? I am confused.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question and the bit of humour that he injected into it.

The reality is that for people who are on EI, who need to access the EI program, it is a program that they pay into as does the employer. It does not matter what government stripe is in power, this money is the money paid in by both parties, one who may need to avail themselves of it and the other who makes it possible for them to avail themselves of it. I do not care what political stripe is in power. We need to recognize the importance of this program. There are people who lose jobs through no fault of their own. They want to work. They need the support. It is not a handout, it is a hand up at a time when they need it. It is their money and their money alone.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition, New Democrats, are strong supporters of a well-funded and effective EI system that can deliver quickly the benefits that employees and employers have paid into. My friend opposite is quite right that the money that is paid into the EI system is money that has been deducted from employees' cheques and is paid for by employers. It is the money of employees and employers.

The hon. member just said that is the case, that this is the money of employees and employers. Why did the Liberal government, 10 years ago or so, take over $50 billion of employees' and employers' money and transfer that into general revenue?

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I can see that question is one that the official opposition wants to hang its hat on.

The reality is that it was done with approval at the time. Was it right? The Auditor General at the time said it was the right thing to do. Does it mean it should happen again? We never know what the circumstances will be, but when people need to avail themselves of the employment insurance program, they should be able to do it. However, under the Liberal government, I do not think people were not able to avail themselves of it.

Today, because of decisions by the Conservative government, people are having difficulty availing themselves of the EI program. The decisions the Conservatives are making are having devastating impacts with respect to certain components of the EI legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today in support of Bill C-4.

I will be focusing my comments on the proposed amendments within Bill C-4 that apply to the Public Service Labour Relations Act. This is in large part because of the misinformation and rhetoric that we hear from the opposition on the proposed amendments, which are of truly epic proportions.

Let me clear, the intent of these changes is to ensure that the public service is affordable, modern and high performing. I believe it is important to look at some of these proposed changes in greater detail in order to see what is actually being proposed.

It is true that Bill C-4 includes measures to modernize and streamline the collective bargaining process and the public service recourse system. I would like to take a moment to explain why these reforms are important for Canadians and for our public service. I will begin with the proposed amendment to extend the current four-month notice period up to 12 months. I am certain most would agree that providing more time would increase the odds that a new agreement could be reached prior to the expiry of an existing collective agreement.

Bill C-4 also proposes that the employer have the exclusive right to designate essential services. I would also like to speak to the importance of this amendment. Ultimately, the public service does not exist for the benefit of big public sector union bosses and their opposition political friends. The role of the public sector is to serve the taxpaying public, Canadians. By extension, a democratically elected government represents the interests of taxpayers and as such should have the right to identify what Canadians consider to be essential services.

This is an important point when one considers that an opposition member currently receiving money from unions is quoted as saying essentially that he could not be a bigger friend to them. I submit that particular member has all but conceded who he is looking out for, and it is certainly not the taxpayer. Likewise, the leader of the third party is also reported as receiving significant amounts of union money in speaking fees while sitting as a member of Parliament. Again, I point out that when it comes to the interest of taxpayers and public sector unions, only our government represents Canadians fairly and that is reflected in this piece of legislation.

Canadians know that it is the responsibility of government to maintain public safety and protect the interests of Canadians. It is part of what Canadians elect a government to do. For this reason, I submit it is entirely fair and reasonable that it is the democratically elected government on behalf of Canadians that should determine essential programs and services within the federal government.

I would also like to speak to the arbitration provision that exists within Bill C-4 for essential services employees. Arbitration would be the resolution mechanism in cases where a bargaining unit has 80% or more of the positions designated as essential or if both parties mutually consent to binding arbitration. Given that essential employees are not able to participate in strike activity, if no agreement could be reached, arbitration offers a meaningful dispute resolution solution while minimizing disruptions that could compromise the health and safety of Canadians.

Another proposed amendment I would like to highlight would require arbitration boards and public interest commissions to give greater consideration to the government's recruitment needs and fiscal circumstances. These amendments would ensure that the value of all salaries, benefits and other compensation, not solely wages, is considered when determining fair compensation. It also includes provisions that the public interest commissions and arbitration boards set out reasons, rationales, for making awards and recommendations. I believe that most here in this place would agree that this is common sense. Canadian taxpayers deserve to know the reasons behind decisions dealing with large amounts of tax dollars and this proposal would make that happen.

I would also like to point out another amendment that requires separate agencies to seek approval from the President of the Treasury Board before consenting to binding arbitration. This is an important amendment for the benefit of Canadian taxpayers who expect public sector compensation to be fair and reasonable. For the protection of the taxpayers, it is imperative that the President of the Treasury Board have the ability to review any terms and conditions that could have a significant impact on public sector compensation. I believe that a democratically elected government should not be powerless when it comes to the spending of tax dollars on public sector wages and benefits, and that is one of the many reasons why I support the bill.

Another amendment is the elimination of the compensation analysis and research function of the Public Service Labour Relations Board. This service has been negated by the fact that the bargaining agents consistently do their own research. As such, this amendment proposes the elimination of a rarely used service that will result in savings to the taxpayer.

I would also like to share some of the proposals that I believe will be of benefit to the public service. I believe all members of the House will agree that employees expect and deserve to be treated fairly. When conflicts occur, it is important to all sides that a timely and effective process be in place to deal with issues of concern. Although many of our current recourse mechanisms meet these objectives, over the course of time a number of additional processes and procedures have arisen. This has resulted in a complex patchwork of systems that at times is legalistic, is often cumbersome and is costly.

Bill C-4 proposes an amendment designed to simplify this process. The amendment proposes that the allegations of employment-related discrimination should be addressed through the grievance process. This amendment eliminates the potential for duplicate proceedings and related expenses, which can further delay workplace dispute resolution. This is a benefit for all workers.

I would also like to be clear on another point. All third-party rights to issue remedies to the public servant who complains of alleged discrimination will remain intact. Public service employees, as citizens, would still be able to file a Canadian Human Rights Commission complaint on matters other than workplace disputes. Bill C-4 would also require bargaining agents and the employer to share the expenses of grievance adjudication, with the exception of grievances related to discrimination. Sharing these costs is a standard practice in virtually all workplaces in Canada. I would ask why the federal government would be any different.

Another point I would like to raise is that Bill C-4 would require employees to obtain bargaining agent support before filing a grievance, except for grievances related to discrimination. I believe this is an important consideration as the union is recognized as the exclusive bargaining agent for the employees in the bargaining unit and has both the expertise and experience in this regard.

Bill C-4 also proposes a revised staffing complaint process. Currently, to be appointed to a position within the public service a person must be found qualified. If a candidate is deemed unqualified for a position, that person could challenge the appointment of another candidate through a complaint, clearly creating a potentially adversarial process. Bill C-4 would amend this process so that a candidate could only challenge the determination of his or her own qualifications and not those of another candidate deemed qualified for the position. This creates a much fairer, more efficient and less adversarial process.

The final proposal I will raise today is the consolidation of the Public Service Labour Relations Board and the Public Service Staffing Tribunal into a public service labour relations and employment board. Clearly this proposal reduces the overlap and duplication of bureaucracy to help avoid a lengthier and more costly process.

While there has certainly been a significant amount of rhetoric and alarmist language on the proposed changes I have spoken about, it is clear that on closer inspection these amendments are certainly responsible and reasonable. Bill C-4 will help to ensure the public service is affordable, modern and high-performing in a manner that respects the taxpayer and our public service.

I encourage all members of this House to support this piece of legislation.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to speak today on economic action plan 2013 act No. 2.

I believe that the results on which our country is now coasting, economic results that are the toast of the world over, relate to an approach to government and an approach to business for which this Conservative government is becoming renowned. It goes back to what a mentor once taught me many years ago when I was running a business in a very competitive environment in Taiwan. The lesson I learned was “may the niche be with you”. That means asking whether we can focus on something that is our calling, something that will lead us to success.

That is what I believe this government and this Minister of Finance have done, through more than seven successive, successful budgets. Again in this budget implementation bill, we see the same hallmarks of success.

Let us delve for a minute into what those successful results have meant for Canadians. What we have seen is the best economic results in the world. We have seen Canada's performance exceed that of all other G7 nations. We have seen over a million new jobs created since the recession began in July 2009. It is by far the best job creation record in the G7. Unemployment rates are below those of the United States; it is the first time in three decades that we have witnessed such an amazing, strong performance.

The International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development have both said that Canada is likely to have the strongest growth in the years ahead. Our debt to GDP ratio is by far the best in the G7. In 2012 it was 34.6%. Germany was a distant second at 52%.

For the sixth straight year, the World Economic Forum has rated Canada as having the best banking system in the world. This would amaze the clients I dealt with in Asia when I practised law in that part of the world: Canada now has the lowest overall tax rate on new business investment in the G7. Canadians are facing the lowest tax burden in some 50 years.

Those are the hallmarks of success and the kinds of things we see implicit in this budget implementation bill. I say to people in government everywhere that if people could only follow the lead of this Conservative government's “may the niche be with you” focus on what is the priority for those it is governing, then we would see success everywhere.

Politics is renowned to be local, and I would like to just delve into some of the examples of these successful hallmarks as they have been manifested in the riding I have the honour to represent.

The first example is in the shipbuilding world. The hon. Minister of Public Works and Government Services announced, this month, a contract to Seaspan to build 10 additional large non-combat ships for our coast guard, in the Vancouver shipyards. This is a contract worth $3.3 billion. It is a blockbuster. It is going to create thousands of jobs, including many in the riding I represent.

That is just the beginning of the story. It is a story I would like to speak on for hours, not the few minutes that are allotted to me.

This Conservative government has seen a shipbuilding business, which was being written off as a sunset industry, become a sunrise industry in our great country. In addition to those thousands of high-paying jobs, we see economic development throughout the country. Industry analysts are saying that in total the national shipbuilding strategy is going to mean some 50,000 jobs across Canada and over $2 billion in annual economic benefit over the next 30 years. It is some sunrise industry.

This is one great example of “may the niche be with you”, how a focus on economic development and job creation is putting Canadians in good stead as we compete to create a truly international centre of excellence for shipbuilding in Vancouver.

A second example of how this government's laser-beam focus on the economy and jobs is creating success is in the pulp and paper world.

In the riding I represent, Howe Sound Pulp and Paper is one of the largest employers in one of the most important sectors in British Columbia. In 2010 a sizable amount of money was invested, not just in upgrading an important mill but in what was called the pulp and paper green transformation program, an excellent example of ensuring that the environment is the economy, a doctrine I am trying to cultivate both in the riding and throughout the country, a doctrine that suggests that our resources and our economy are not at odds with one another but instead are intertwined, something our Conservative government grasps and continues to endorse. We have seen this specific investment in the Sunshine Coast part of the riding I represent increase productivity in an environmentally friendly manner. “May the niche be with you”. We see that again being demonstrated in the pulp and paper industry.

More and more we are seeing that, in the world of the arts, this is an important economic driver. We have seen continued support by this government for the arts, in past budgets and directly or indirectly through the encouragement of this budget implementation act.

People are thronging to the riding I represent to attend festivals just like the two for which we announced funding in the last month, the Sechelt Arts Festival and the Sechelt written arts festival. These are two examples where our government, through a wise use of taxpayers dollars, is seeing those dollars leveraged over and over again by people in the arts who are in and of themselves demonstrating an international prowess that makes us the toast of the world in the arts while also creating economic development and jobs.

Let me move from shipbuilding through the arts to fisheries, another area where our government is investing and showing that when “the niche is with you” we can succeed.

In the last budget we saw two great strides forward for fisheries, and these came as a result of legislators representing British Columbians and other Canadians, who said we need to reward the amazing efforts of our volunteers who are improving fisheries habitat around the country. This is not just for the fisheries. This is for jobs and growth.

The recreational fisheries conservation partnership program was created, a great program that is seeding super projects around the country. Two of those projects were funded in the riding I represent, projects that will enhance fisheries habitat, that will encourage volunteers and will lead directly and indirectly to jobs and economic growth. I am speaking of the Evans Creek rewatering project and the Tiampo coho restoration project submitted by the Squamish Watershed Society. Kudos to the Sea to Sky Fisheries Roundtable and Pacific Salmon Foundation, which collaborated to make those a success. In the last budget, we saw enhanced support for the Pacific Salmon Foundation, one of the best volunteer organizations in the country.

These are all examples of how the Government of Canada has continued to support and build up successful industries, not only in British Columbia but throughout Canada. The niche is with this Conservative government. As a result of the government focusing on jobs and growth, both in the budget implementation act and in all of its actions, Canadians are benefiting and we continue to be the toast of the world.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my area we are witnessing a return of investment in the auto industry. The government did not want to do that at first, and it was brought kicking and screaming to the table. However, there has been a rebound of some degree. The reality is that our auto industry has not picked up like that of the United States and other countries where the industry is growing. Our industry is recovering but not to the same degree as the American industry.

Does my colleague have any comments with respect to the auto industry and what we could do to enhance it? Why is the Canadian situation different from that of the rest of the world?

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I think that is the case for any industry we might discuss. Our unemployment rate is lower than that of our G7 competitors and considerably lower than the U.S. rate. This is the first time in 30 years that we can say that Canada is doing better than the United States. I believe that there has been an upswing in all industries, including the auto industry. Things are not perfect by any means. We have a lot of work to do, but this is really a great success. We have to congratulate our Minister of Finance and our Prime Minister for their leadership in this area.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech by my colleague opposite. I found his phrase “may the niche be with you” rather intriguing. I do not know why, but it reminds me of Star Wars movies and makes me think about the fact that time allocation has been brought to bear on this debate and that this mammoth bill is more than 300 pages long. I do not know why, but I thought of the Phantom Menace.

Then, fast forward to 2015 and a new hope came to mind.

However, out of curiosity, what does “may the niche be with you” mean exactly?

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

We have to focus on our priorities. In a world where there are many challenges, we have to focus on certain priorities. First of all we have to identify our priorities. Our government consulted Canadians extensively. I conducted consultations with many ministers who came to my riding. We heard about Canadians' priorities. More and more we see that Canadians want us, their government, to help them find jobs and sources of income. That is why we are seeing success across the country.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for my colleague.

We know that one-quarter of the measures in this budget affect the public service and conditions for workers. However, the President of the Treasury Board was very clear: he wants to pass the bill first, and then he will share the details.

Does my colleague think that is democratic? The President of the Treasury Board is forcing us to pass his bill before he reveals any details. Does my colleague think that is truly democratic?

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. Every time she speaks in the House, her French is clear enough that even an anglophone can understand. I thank her for that.

Her question has to do with how democratic this process is. We need a bill like the one we are debating today to implement the budget. We will examine many more bills in the House. We will have many opportunities to discuss them. I know. I have a lot of confidence in our democracy.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sad to rise today to speak to Bill C-4. My speech will focus primarily on division 19 of part 3, clauses 471 and 472, which have to do with the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court of Canada. It feels strange to say in the same sentence that I will talk about two clauses regarding the appointment of Supreme Court judges and the budget implementation bill. Something does not seem right there.

We opposed the last three budget implementation bills, and we will oppose Bill C-4 because of both its content and the method the government has used. Bill C-4 includes a wide range of complex measures, many of which have nothing to do with the budget. This is what bothers me the most, and I think it deserves to be studied carefully. The bill is so broad and we have so little time to examine it.

I repeat: we are faced with a time allocation motion. Not only has the government decided to group a number of unrelated items that have nothing to do with either the economy or the budget measures, but it is also preventing the members of the House from making their views known and looking at those major considerations properly. I am not the only one saying so.

Columnist Andrew Coyne said that this type of mammoth bill makes a mockery of the confidence convention, shielding bills that would otherwise be defeated in the House. As a result, there is no way of knowing how the lawmakers would vote on those bills. We have no idea at all whether they are for or against each of the pieces of legislation grouped under this bill. All we know is whether they voted for or against the omnibus bill as a whole.

There is no common thread among the various measures, no overarching principle. It is a sort of compulsory buffet. It is alarming to see that the government wants to force Parliament to approve its legislative agenda in one go, including division 19 of part 3, which consists of clauses 471 and 472 dealing with appointing judges to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Canadian Press journalist and lawyer Stéphanie Marin gave a very good factual account of the situation that triggered the addition of clauses 471 and 472 to Bill C-4 in relation to the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court of Canada.

We must fully grasp what is happening. This is not just a technicality, as I thought I heard from the Conservative benches, but rather a real fundamental problem. Clauses 471 and 472 were added after the appointment of Justice Marc Nadon, the most recent appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The day the Prime Minister appointed Marc Nadon to the Supreme Court of Canada, he had the appointment document in his left hand and a legal opinion in his right hand from the Honourable Ian Binnie, a former Supreme Court justice. The government had seen fit to ask him whether someone from the Federal Court of Appeal could be appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada to take one of the three seats allocated to Quebec in order to protect Canada's bijural nature.

I cannot tell you enough how much I respect the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court of Canada. My respect for that institution knows no bounds. That being said, the Conservative government has managed to politicize this institution, which it should not be. Politics should have nothing to do with the Supreme Court so that it can make decisions as the highest court without any interference, without any lingering questions about the people on the bench. That is how it was up until recently.

I mean no disrespect to Justice Marc Nadon, whose career as a lawyer and a judge has been quite remarkable in many respects. Nonetheless, the real question here has to do with the meaning of section 6 of the Supreme Court Act.

Consider this: the government shows up with an appointment and a legal opinion. I could read the tons of comments that have been made on this. Eminent constitutional lawyers who know an awful lot more than I do have written about this.

I encourage anyone who is interested in this issue to read Purposive Interpretation, Quebec, and the Supreme Court Act by Michael Plaxton and Carissima Mathen from the University of Ottawa. You will see that this is not a technical matter. We do not usually see this type of thing in budget implementation legislation.

These are fundamental issues that go to the heart of what our federation is. Ian Binnie told the government that the decision is in order, but many others, like the Government of Quebec, say that this decision does not meet the criteria set out in section 6.

There must be enough doubt in this respect for the federal government, through its Minister of Justice, to think it was a good idea to make what we call a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada.

I must confess that I am very pleased that the government has broken its silence after too many weeks, and decided to move quickly.

Indeed, it is important to understand that Quebec, which has three seats in the Supreme Court of Canada, currently has only two judges sitting on that court, for the simple reason that Justice Marc Nadon, in his wisdom, has opted to sit on the sidelines for now.

The government could easily have avoided all this drama if it had chosen to make 100% sure that it was making a good decision, not in terms of the person selected, but rather with respect to sections 471 and 472 of Bill C-4, which will be amending sections 5 and 6 of the Supreme Court Act—apparently to explain, after the fact, what these sections really mean according to the government of the day.

This is extremely worrying, especially when we consider that it is being done without consultation. I am not making this up. The finance people held a briefing on Bill C-4. When we asked about division 19, specifically sections 471 and 472, they told us that, in their opinion, this would apply retroactively if the bill were passed.

However, the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada is very clear. The questions before the Supreme Court are the following:

1. Can a person who was, at any time, an advocate of at least 10 years standing at the Barreau du Québec be appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada as a member of the Supreme Court from Quebec pursuant to sections 5 and 6 of the Supreme Court Act?

2. Can Parliament enact legislation that requires that a person be or has previously been a barrister or advocate of at least 10 years standing at the bar of a province as a condition of appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada or enact the annexed declaratory provisions as set out in clauses 471 and 472 of the Bill entitled Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2?

Thus, two questions have been referred to the Supreme Court, yet this is going to pass here before we even get an answer. It makes no sense.

Last week, I moved a motion and hoped to receive unanimous consent to at least remove those two clauses from Bill C-4, since they have absolutely nothing to do with budget implementation. Unfortunately, my motion was rejected by the members opposite.

We are in a real quagmire, caused entirely by this government and this Prime Minister, who ignores all of the recommendations and suggestions we make, many of them for his own good. He refuses to listen to anything on this.

I have a lot more to say, but unfortunately, given the time allocation motion, we are out of time. In addition, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will not even have the opportunity to study this issue thoroughly with constitutional experts to respond to this question.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate our hon. colleague on her speech. As usual, she provided us with some very relevant explanations regarding the issue she raised from Bill C-4, that is, the appointment of Supreme Court justices.

She also talked about how this government tends to deny not just reality but also the democratic process. Bringing forward yet another time allocation motion is definitely not meant to encourage a more thorough debate on everything included in Bill C-4, which, I would remind the House, is yet another omnibus bill.

Getting back to the question she raised, I wonder if our colleague could elaborate on the impact that such a regulation will have on the decisions before the court.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question because there is a huge impact.

At the Supreme Court of Canada, the bench that is called upon to hear a wide range of major cases should be comprised of nine justices. Take, for example, the reference—the approach taken by the Conservative government—involving the Senate. The question is whether we can modify the composition of the Senate and what type of constitutional amendment it would require.

There are only eight justices on the bench, and one justice from Quebec is missing. We know that, like it or not, the whole constitutional issue and a balanced federation are extremely important elements. Nobody reads sections 5 and 6 for fun. Nobody is denigrating the Federal Court judges, who have tremendous value, and who have a legitimate and rightful place in the Supreme Court in accordance with section 5, although I am not sure that is the case under section 6.

This is a major issue that is not going to be resolved in the coming weeks. It could take as long as a year or more. What a pity. This could have all been avoided.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. She has incredible legal experience and she is very generously sharing it today.

Let us look at the facts. My colleague's speech was 10 minutes long, but probably could have lasted an hour, and it touched on only two clauses of a bill that amends 70 different laws.

As the citizenship and immigration critic, that makes me angry. Elements of this bill could also be studied by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, and we would certainly do well to hear from experts on the various elements of this bill.

What types of experts could talk to us about the clauses she discussed today? How would it be beneficial to hear from people with this type of expertise, and what are the potential consequences of not listening to these experts when studying the bill?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a huge impact.

We would like to hear from constitutional experts. We have to look at the interpretation of section 6, and I will take the time to read it because people are talking about this issue without necessarily talking about the situation specifically.

According to section 6:

At least three of the judges shall be appointed from among the judges of the Court of Appeal or of the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec or from among the advocates of that Province.

It all depends on the interpretation of section 6, and not section 5, which states that any person who has at least ten years standing at the bar of a province may be appointed to the Supreme Court. Section 6 is a little more specific.

As for the impact of whether or not a person has been a judge for a certain period of time, these are valid and important questions that reflect on the credibility of the institution, and not the person appointed.

That being said, we need more than just the cursory study that we will be forced to do at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights as referred by the Standing Committee on Finance. I am sorry, but the finance committee is not our boss. We will probably not be able to amend anything nor even have the time to meet with constitutional experts from Quebec or the rest of Canada who could enlighten us on this matter.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise today and speak in this august chamber about Bill C-4, Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, our second implementation bill from the government. I appreciate very much the opportunity to rise and talk about how important the bill is, not only for my constituents in the great riding of Wetaskiwin but for my province of Alberta and the country as a whole.

Canada is a great nation. It is built by the hard-working families of our communities. They are paving the pathway to prosperity for future generations with their hard work.

Since 2006, which was the year I was first elected, our government has invested in families at unprecedented levels. In fact, I ran for the nomination for this party because of the lack of interest that previous parties and governments seemed to have when it came to treating families fairly, particularly with the tax system. Now more families than ever before are benefiting from the measures that we put in place since 2006.

I will cite some examples. In my riding of Wetaskiwin, Alberta, trades play a large role in generating jobs for our communities. It does not matter whether one lives in or around Blackfalds, Rocky Mountain House, Millet, or any of the places in between: the tradespeople's tools deduction is working to put a little money back into the pockets of these hard-working families, right where it belongs.

This is not all we have done to improve the lot of families right across Canada to help them get ahead and make ends meet. Since 2006, the typical family of four can now realize approximately, on average, $3,200 in tax savings in any given year. Conservatives have done this by cutting the lowest personal tax rate and increasing the tax exemption amount. That means there are fewer Canadians paying taxes than ever before when it comes to personal income tax. Conservatives have reduced the GST, a tax that everyone pays, from 7% to 6% to 5%, and we have introduced numerous tax changes and savings measures to help families keep their hard-earned money.

I will go through a couple of examples, because I know the families in my constituency certainly appreciate this. There is the children's fitness tax credit. My kids play hockey, school sports, baseball, and soccer, and this has been a great opportunity for us to realize some of the savings because families incur a cost for these activities. It is wonderful to see so many kids out there participating in activities, keeping fit and so on.

There is the children's arts tax credit. Again I can speak for my own family, whether it is my boys in guitar lessons or my daughter playing cello or piano. These are the kinds of things that allow us to keep a little extra of our income to make sure we can pay for the lessons and the instruments in our particular case. It does not matter whether it is music or any of the other types of arts, such as dance or whatever the case may be; these are great initiatives.

There is the child tax credit. Before the Conservatives became the governing party, there was not even a tax credit for having kids. Everyone knows the cost of raising children is very high, and just keeping money in the hands of parents, who know how to spend it best, through a child tax credit, is a no-brainer.

There is also the family caregiver tax credit, which allows family members to look after their sick or elderly family members, and the first-time homebuyer tax credit, which reduces the barrier to make it a little easier for young families to get into their first home.

There is the registered disability savings plans, allowing families to save for their loved ones who are going to be struggling for the rest of their lives with the disabilities that they may have.

The volunteer firefighters' tax credit honours those men and women who voluntarily put themselves in harm's way to defend our property and our lives. They spend money out of their own pockets to make sure they are well equipped. The least the government can do is to offer something back through a tax credit to these brave men and women who are our volunteer firefighters. I should note that every fire department in the constituency of Wetaskiwin is a volunteer fire department.

There is the working income tax benefit. Absolutely, if someone is going to work, they should realize a savings as a result. This is going to break down that wall to make it more feasible for people to work. We should not have to have a choice in the tax system on whether it is more lucrative not to work than to work. This is a no-brainer as well.

We also have the textbook tax credit. A number of people in my constituency face the same issues I did when I went to university. I grew up in a rural community; there were no post-secondary institutions near me, so I had to move in order to get a post-secondary education. At no point in time did any previous government ever give me the opportunity to claim textbooks, which are a huge expense. Now we have that textbook tax credit, allowing students and families to keep more of that money and allowing them to invest more resources into their children's education.

On eliminating the marriage penalty for single-income families, I cannot believe that previous governments did not even value a stay-at-home parent. If a family made the choice to have one person stay at home to raise children in their formative years, the person who was not making an income, whoever that happened to be, would get less of a personal exemption amount at tax time. Well, we ended that penalty and treated stay-at-home parents equally in terms of tax. This is a step in the right direction, and someday I hope we can get to a point in this country where we actually see income splitting for families. That is something I will certainly be supporting.

There is also the tax-free savings account. As I go through my riding and talk with people, they say that this investment vehicle has revolutionized the investment and savings industry and allows Canadians more flexibility and freedom. This is an absolutely fantastic tool that I know will help empower people across the country to save for their retirement and plan for their future.

Time and time again, whether it is these measures or any other common sense measure that Canadians ask us to bring forward, at every opportunity when we have had a chance to stand in this place and vote in favour of these measures, it has only been Conservative members of Parliament who have stood up and voted in favour of these budgets. Every other time that I have been here, opposition members over there have been against all of the measures that I just talked about. If Canadians want to know who has their best interests at heart, they have to look no further than here on the Conservative side of the House to make sure that they have the resources they need to raise their families.

Speaking of some of the changes that we need to make in the budget here for those hard-working families who pay their taxes and play by the rules, there are some rules in budget 2013 that I would like to highlight.

Budget 2013 would restore fairness to the tax system by ensuring that everyone pays their fair share of taxes. When everybody pays their fair share of taxes, we all pay less. We are making changes that would improve the integrity of the tax system and close some of the loopholes that currently exist; strengthen compliance and clarification of the language so that there is less confusion, both for the person filing taxes and for those who audit and oversee the tax system; and combat international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.

As I said, closing loopholes and clarifying the tax rules would ensure that all Canadians pay their fair share. This would allow hard-working Canadians to keep more, because they would not be offsetting what other people hide or get away with.

Alberta, like the rest of Canada, was not immune to the effects of the global economic crisis. Yes, Canada is leading the G7 in job creation, and Alberta has a robust economy, but that does not mean all of our communities and all of our residents are thriving. Every once in a while we have to extend a hand to those who need a hand up and make sure that no one gets left behind. That is precisely why our government is investing over $1.25 billion in affordable housing initiatives.

In August, I had the pleasure of announcing on behalf of the Minister of State (Social Development) $600,000 in funding for Shkola Suites in Calmar, Alberta. This is a great initiative. It allows those families an opportunity to be close to a school for their kids and gives them a bit of a break on their housing costs so that they can get back on their feet and get re-established. This is an interim housing measure for those families who just need a little bit of help to get going again, because sometimes life throws a curve ball, and that can happen in Alberta just as much as it can happen anywhere else. Thanks go to Nancy Lang and the folks at the Leduc Foundation, who are doing a great job making sure that nobody gets left behind in those communities.

In order to continue helping Canadian communities and families, the budget would invest nearly $600 million in Alberta and across Canada to address homelessness. Coupled with our affordable housing strategy, I know that the budget would greatly help those people get back on their feet.

Speaking of communities, Alberta and every region of Canada has communities that are facing challenges when it comes to infrastructure. I hear this constantly. I represent a large geographic area of 26 municipalities and counties, and every one of them tells me the same story: they want long-term predictable funding, which is what we did through the gas tax transfer in previous budgets.

Now, going forward with the announcements in budget 2013 and with the implementation coming up in 2014, some $32 billion will be flowing to these communities in stable, predictable funding. When we couple that with $14 billion over the same time frame for major infrastructure and with the P3 partnerships, Canada will be well poised to address the infrastructure problems that it has, which would enable our communities to flourish and thrive going forward.

I want to talk a little about agriculture.

First of all, I want to thank the Prime Minister and the Minister of International Trade for the excellent work they did with the comprehensive economic and trade agreement.

Agriculture is a backbone in my constituency, as are all of the resource sectors that are there. I know that with the changes that will be coming as a result of the budget implementation and these trade agreements, central Alberta will be well poised to thrive well into the future.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague spoke a lot about tax credits. About ten days ago, I held an information meeting in my riding on tax credits for persons with disabilities. Many people who attended did not know about these credits or that they could apply for them any time of the year.

I would like to know how the member plans on informing people about all the credits announced. Will he count on NDP members to inform the public?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is asking me a question about what the government is going to do with regard to disseminating information. I guess I would have to tell her to stay tuned as the information presents itself.

What I would encourage her to do is vote in favour of the budget so that the information can get out there and the programs can be delivered to those folks, whether they are disabled, people who need investment for skills and jobs training, or people who need employment insurance. Whatever the case might be, if the hon. member wants the program to be delivered to her constituents, the sooner we pass the budget, the sooner these programs will be delivered.