Debates of Dec. 3rd, 2013

Question No. 59

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, Canada port authorities, such as the St. John’s Port Authority, operate at arm’s length from the federal government and on a commercial basis, within the parameters set by the Canada Marine Act and associated regulations and their individual letters patent.

Each Canada port authority has an independent board of directors that is responsible for determining the port authority’s strategic direction and overseeing the port authority’s operations. The St. John’s Port Authority is responsible for determining its capital projects and how these are financed and implemented.

Questions regarding the St. John’s Port Authority’s current and future port infrastructure projects and the associated commercial arrangements should be directed to the port authority.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 50 and 54 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

Question No. 50

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

With regard to the Canadian Coast Guard: (a) what is the complete list of all Canadian Coast Guard ships in service each year since 2000, including (i) the name of each ship, (ii) the location of the home port for each ship, (iii) the number of months per year each ship is operational, (iv) the annual operating budget of each ship, (v) the number of full time and part time employees on each ship, (vi) a list of each operation undertaken by each ship, including a detailed summary of the operation, date, and location(s); (b) what are the ships that are currently slated to be taken out of service or have annual operational service times decreased; and (c) what are the ships that are currently in production and the proposed location for their home port?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 54

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces, since January 1, 2006: (a) what are the file numbers of each set of Minutes of Proceedings for a Board of Inquiry convened to investigate the death, attempted suicide, serious injury, or injury likely to cause permanent disability of a Canadian Armed Forces member; (b) what was the date on which the Chief of Defence Staff, or a person acting on behalf of the Chief of Defence Staff, approved those minutes; (c) if the minutes have not been approved, the date by which such approval is anticipated; and (d) has a copy of the minutes of the Board of Inquiry been released to the victim or next of kin of each victim?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

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

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Bill C-4—Time Allocation Motion

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

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at report stage of the Bill and one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at report stage and on the day allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, here we are again.

The government is using this procedure for the 58th time. That is unbelievable. This is the 58th time since the last election alone. The government is shattering all the records and the worst records at that. This government is obsessed with shutting down all debate.

Something to notice about this particular one, which I think makes the point as to why the Conservatives are so offline and so contrary to parliamentary rules and procedure, is that the bill they are rushing through under time allocation this time, which they had to rush through in the last stage of debate to get it to committee, was not looked at by the committee for three weeks.

The government hit the panic button in the House of Commons and shut down debate because it is such an urgent bill. We had to get to it right away. It was so vital to the economy, but of course, the finance committee did not look at it for the next 21 days.

A second piece of this time allocation, which is fascinating, is that the Conservatives make so many mistakes when they do this, when they shut down debate in Parliament. Bill C-4, which they are shutting down today, is there to make corrections to a previous bill that they rushed through Parliament, Bill C-60, which was making corrections to a previous bill that they rushed through Parliament, Bill C-48.

This is what the government does time and again. It keeps making these mistakes because it is in such a panic, yet it calls it good government and good order. It is not. It is bad legislation. It is bad process.

When is the government going to learn? This is no way to run a country.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the approach of this government to the use of time allocation has been as a scheduling device, not as a device to end debate.

As has been noted, there have been occasions when the opposition has been critical of the use of time allocation, stating that we have allocated more time than is necessary for the debate on a bill. The reason is that the opposition keeps getting confused about its purpose. The opposition thinks it is about limiting debate, but we believe it is about ensuring a proper amount of debate, as well as ensuring certainty about decisions getting made.

When we look around the world today, the problem is gridlock, especially on economic questions, and this is a budget implementation bill. There is uncertainty, whether it be in legislatures across the border to the south or in the legislatures of Europe, where they have had a crisis going on for some years. Where there has been an inability to make decisions, that has undermined the confidence and economies.

We in Canada have the benefit of the strongest economy of the major developed economies. The fact is, and we will hear it again and again from people around the world, that it is because this government shows clear leadership and has the ability to get decisions made by Parliament to give the people in the House the right to actually vote on the economic measures in front of them.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the whopper of the year would go to this particular government House leader in terms of how he tried to spin this issue. To say that time allocation is about scheduling is so far from reality that it is totally amazing that he would even stand in his place to try to make that sort of an assertion.

Let there be no doubt, it is absolutely shameful the manner in which the Conservative government is treating the House of Commons. It is an assault on democracy, and it is as simple as that. We have procedures put in place. No government in the history of our country has ever gone into time allocation in the same fashion that the current government has done. It has also brought in these huge budget bills and used them as a back door to pass numerous other pieces of legislation, which should be stand-alone legislation.

I believe that Canadians will become more and more aware of the tactics of the Conservative majority government and when the time comes, we will see that there will be a huge change because what the Conservatives are doing inside this chamber is a disservice to each and every member of Parliament. It does not matter whether one is a Liberal, a Conservative or a New Democrat, it is a disservice.

When can we expect this government House leader and the PMO to start demonstrating more respect for proper procedures here in the House of Commons?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am familiar with the fact that the hon. member for Winnipeg North carries out office hours in McDonald's every Saturday morning. I have read that. Therefore, I am surprised by his use of the Burger King reference in offering me a Whopper, but I would be happy to take up that offer with him some day.

However, I know he is new to the House, relatively speaking, because had he been here when the Liberals were last in government, he would have found that in their last budget implementation bill they were quite content to amend a range of legislation on a broad range of topics.

For example, the last bill from the Liberals on budget implementation amended the Auditor General Act, the Asia-Pacific Foundation of Canada Act, the Broadcasting Act, the Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador Additional Fiscal Equalization Offset Payments Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Canada Post Corporation Act, the Employment Insurance Act, the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, and many more. I could go on.

I say this not to be critical of that practice because it was doing what a budget implementation bill does: implement a budget. My problem is that he is being a typical Liberal in saying, “Do as I say, not as I do”. It is that hypocrisy from Liberals that for generations has disappointed Canadians.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

When we talk about time allocation motions, we normally assume that discussions haven taken place with the government leader. There are supposed to be discussions and negotiations. Why is he incapable of holding these discussions and negotiations? Why did he have to use a time allocation motion for the 58th time?

It seems to me that this undermines the credibility of this government, because a government should be capable of negotiating different agreements with other countries. However, the government is proving that it is incapable of sitting down with the opposition parties and having a reasonable discussion.

When I see the government behaving like this, I have no confidence in its ability to negotiate with other countries, even though that is one of its responsibilities.

I would like to know what discussions the government held and why it is incapable of reaching an agreement.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the challenge our government is facing is the fact that the opposition opposes all of our measures that are important to Canada's economy.

This budget implementation bill has a number of very important measures, which our government has advanced. Unfortunately, we find the NDP, once again, opposing the legislation despite the extension and expansion of the hiring credit for small businesses, for example, which will benefit an estimated 560,000 employers and many more employees in terms of job creation over the long term. That is something they are resisting having passed. We think it is important that this is put into place.

There is also the increased indexing of the lifetime capital gains exemption, which would make investing in small businesses more rewarding. Once again, they say they support small business, but they are opposing the legislation and opposing our effort to ensure that it does come to a vote so that it can become law before the end of this year.

We have an expansion of the accelerated capital cost allowance to further encourage investments in clean energy generation. One would think they might be sympathetic to that, but no, once again they oppose the legislation and they oppose having it come into effect before the end of this year. That is what we will see them do later today with their votes on this.

I look at the important economic measures in this, which are important to ensure Canada continues to play a leading role economically and continues to have a relatively strong economic position in a world where economic circumstances are most uncertain. We think it is important that we stay on that course in a very focused fashion.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the House leader's response to the question from the member for Winnipeg North, where he said in part that the purpose of the budget implementation act is to implement the provisions of the budget. This budget implementation act amends the Supreme Court Act and try as I might in going through the volumes of the budget, I could find no reference to the Supreme Court Act. Therefore, I would argue that this budget does a lot more than that. In fact, I asked the Minister of Justice if he could find it and he could not find it either.

My question for the hon. House leader is this. Apparently matters of economic interest are not entitled to a fulsome debate here, so we are imposing the guillotine. Is there any subject matter that would warrant a full debate that is not limited by time allocation? Is there anything the government feels justifies a full and unlimited discussion in the House?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member misunderstands. With time allocation what we are doing is establishing certainty of scheduling and of decisions being made. My question for him would be this. Is there any issue on which he is happy to see votes occur on a regular basis, or is it really his objective to keep decisions from being made? Is it because he simply does not like the agenda of our government, notwithstanding that the agenda of the government has delivered a relatively strong position for Canada on the world stage economically? We have had over a million net new jobs created since the economic downturn. Nearly 90% of those are full-time and 85% of them private sector jobs. This is the track record of our government delivering through our budgets on strong economic policy. It has given us the strongest job creation of any of the major developed economies, the G7 countries.

Our unemployment is at its lowest level in many years. In fact, it remains below that of the United States. For almost my entire lifetime, Canada's unemployment was always higher. However, under our government, for the first time in decades, Canada has consistently had lower unemployment than the United States. Again, this is proof that the economic policies are working.

The reason they are working is that we are running the affairs of the government and the House in a productive, orderly and hard-working fashion that allows decisions to be made. It sets a clear policy course and then implements it. That is what we are doing today and that is why we think it is important that the budget implementation bill be in place before the end of this year.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, the government House leader alluded just a minute ago to some of the challenges within the House. He also mentioned some of the macroeconomic challenges. This budget was introduced in March of 2013. We had the first budget implementation act in June of 2013. Here we are in December of 2013. It would be an interesting, novel concept to get the 2013 budget passed in 2013. Therefore, could the government House leader maybe describe some of the unique economic challenges that we have in 2013 and why it is so important that we get the budget passed now?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made a good point. We already debated the budget at length in the House. There were votes on it and the House decided to go ahead with it. We already had excessive debate on the first budget implementation bill and now on this, the second budget implementation bill. It really is time that we had all these measures in place.

When we look at the overall challenges in the world, we can see the question of investment, for example. Attracting foreign investment is a critical element to creating jobs in our country. Canada is the only one of the major developed economies that has recovered more business investment than we had before the economic downturn. There is no other major developed economy in the world that can make the same claim. The reasons for that are the economic policies we have put in place: a low-tax plan for jobs and growth, the lowest taxes on new job-creating businesses anywhere among those developed economies, the fact that we have the most skilled workforce in the world, and the fact that we have the lowest debt and the lowest deficit of any of those major developed economies.

All of this makes Canada a very attractive destination for foreign investment. However, we have to continue to put in place those policies and ensure that we stay focused and do not go down the path of higher taxes, bigger government, debts and deficits that the opposition would have us go down. The budget implementation bill will be another step in the right direction of that low-tax plan for jobs and growth for Canada.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about a time allocation motion for the 58th time. As I have always said, this government is becoming increasingly arrogant with respect to democratic institutions. Here we are in Parliament, and within that word is the French word “parler”, which means to talk. However, the Conservatives will not let us talk about the issues that are very important to our constituents, who sent us here to debate bills.

Once again, we are dealing with a government is even more arrogant than the previous Liberal government, even though the Conservatives criticized the Liberals for it at the time. Unfortunately, we are faced with a very arrogant government that shows contempt for our democratic institutions.

Why is this government even more arrogant than the Liberals were back in the day?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is very simple for the hon. member. Why is she defending the arrogance of those special interests that resist this budget in holding hands with them and taking up arms with them against measures that we think are important on behalf of ordinary Canadians?

For example, her party, in resisting this measure to put the budget implementation bill in place this year and voting against it, is resisting what the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants described as a budget that:

...looks to close tax loopholes, address aggressive tax planning, clarify tax rules, reduce international tax avoidance and tax evasion and improve tax fairness. It also provides the Canada Revenue Agency with new tools to enforce the tax rules.

The people who know best understand that this is a bill that is on the side of ordinary taxpayers against those who are engaging in aggressive tax avoidance and tax evasion, making sure that the wealthy and those special interests cannot pay their taxes.

I ask the member why she is standing on the side of those special interests that are trying to avoid their obligations to pay taxes and resisting measures to ensure that they have to pay their obligations so that ordinary hard-working taxpayers do not have to carry more than their fair share of the load. Why is she proposing that?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I would remind all members that the target is for the question to be for one minute and the response to be for one minute.

The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.