Debates of April 15th, 2013

Question No. 1204

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

With regard to the Royal Military College (RMC), for fiscal years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012: (a) what were the numbers of graduates and undergraduates; (b) what were the profiles of officer cadets who entered the RMC, broken down by (i) gender, (ii) first official language, (ii) province of origin; (c) what were the profiles of RMC officer cadets who graduated and are commissioned, broken down by (i) gender, (ii) first official language; and (d) what is the number of RMC undergraduates who have been exempted or otherwise unable to attain the established standard for bilingualism in each of the two official language groupings?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

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

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

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The 1982 Repatriation of the Constitution

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The Chair has notice of a request for an emergency debate from the hon. member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia. I will hear him now.

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about a specific and important matter requiring urgent attention. Under Standing Order 52, I ask that, today, you grant my request for an emergency debate. Here are the facts.

For the first time in history, the Supreme Court has decided to launch an internal review after allegations that Laskin violated the fundamental rights and rules regarding the separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. The Supreme Court has confirmed that this is a serious situation. Yet, having the Supreme Court investigate itself will not demonstrate that we have an open and transparent justice system.

With regard to the information contained in the book La bataille de Londres, which was published last week, historian Frédéric Bastien stated—with evidence to support his statement—that former Supreme Court chief justice Bora Laskin provided information to Canadian and British government officials during Supreme Court deliberations on the legality of the plan to repatriate the Constitution.

What is more, another Supreme Court justice at that time, Willard Estey, also secretly exchanged information with London on the same topic in the fall of 1980. By so doing, these judges ignored the separation of powers.

The very operation of our democratic institutions is based on this fundamental principle of the separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. These judges violated this rule by violating the confidentiality of the deliberations and by submitting themselves to the will of the executive branch.

The information contained in La bataille de Londres raises serious concerns that alone are enough to justify a public inquiry. Patrick Taillon, a law professor at Laval University, Benoît Pelletier, an expert on constitutional law and law professor at the University of Ottawa, and Henri Brun, a constitutional expert, have all come to the same conclusion.

Mr. Bastien and some analysts confirm that, by definition, this violation of the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive constitutes a coup d'état. “When a person violates a constitutional rule in the name of constitutional change, that is a coup d'état,” Mr. Bastien said.

John Ford, who was the British high commissioner in Ottawa at the time, also described the situation as “a real attempt at a coup d’état in order to change the balance of powers within Confederation”. This quote is taken from correspondence between Ford and the British foreign affairs minister at the time, which Mr. Bastien obtained from the Foreign Office.

In light of this new information, I ask for an emergency debate on this issue, which calls into question the integrity and independence of the Supreme Court, as well as the separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government, which form the very basis of democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the attention that you will give to this request, which is fundamental to the trust that Canadians must have in the separation of powers.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I would like to thank the hon. member for raising this issue, which is very important to many members. However, I do not think that it complies with the Standing Orders regarding emergency debates.

S. O. 31

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The Chair has notice that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills will be rising on the question of privilege raised by the member for Langley.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being allowed to speak to this question of privilege. It is the first opportunity I have had to speak to the point raised by the member for Langley, so I would like to add my thoughts for your consideration.

Speaking in the House of Commons is a fundamental right of members of this place. That is the most important starting point for all of us in this chamber. It is fundamental to what this chamber is all about. The real question in front of you, Mr. Speaker, on this question of privilege is really this: who gets to decide who speaks on the floor of this House? Is it the parliamentary party House leaders, the parliamentary party whips or is it you, the Speaker, who ultimately has the power of recognition? That really is the heart of the fundamental question that the member for Langley raised. It is the question as to whether or not you, as Speaker, still have the power of recognition over members' statements. The most important point to make in the context of this question of privilege is that the fundamental right of all members in this place is speech, the ability to use words to articulate points of view in this place, whether the members are independent members of Parliament not recognized as a parliamentary party, or whether they are members of Parliament who are part of recognized parliamentary parties.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, also affectionately known as “O'Brien and Bosc” states:

By far, the most important right accorded to Members of the House is the exercise of freedom of speech in parliamentary proceedings. It has been described as…a fundamental right without which they would be hampered in the performance of their duties. It permits them to speak in the House without inhibition, to refer to any matter or express any opinion as they see fit, to say what they feel needs to be said in the furtherance of the national interest and the aspirations of their constituents.

It is the reason why members in this House enjoy immunity from libel and slander laws. It is the reason why it is a breach of a member's privilege to prevent a member from physically getting to this House to speak on the floor. It is a reason why all these privileges exist. It is for us to be able to speak freely on this floor of the people's place, the House of Commons. Speaking is what we do here. In a democracy, we do not solve our debates or disagreements through the tip of a sword or through violence. We solve them through words: words of praise, words of caution, words of criticism. That is why this question of privilege is so important. We settle debates in a democracy through words, and the ability of members to express those words on this floor is the heart of the matter.

Party whips and party House leaders for decades have served a coordinating and scheduling function as to who gets to speak on the floor of this House of Commons. They have played for decades the role of coordination and scheduling in terms of who gets to speak during debates and who gets to speak during other parts of Parliament's life. For example, during debate, the party's House leaders and the party whips coordinate among the three recognized parliamentary parties as to who is going to speak when during the debate, which members, and which rotation. However, if a member of a recognized parliamentary party caucus were to rise at the very end of that list of members that had been coordinated by the three recognized parliamentary parties, a member who had not yet spoken to the bill and who was not on the list that had been prepared by the respective parliamentary House leaders, you, Mr. Speaker, would recognize him or her, even if the party whip or the party House leader sent you a note in the chamber and said, “Do not recognize this member”. Why? Because it is a fundamental right for a member to rise in his or her spot to speak to the chamber.

Unfortunately, over the decades the coordinating and scheduling function of party House leaders and party whips has shifted to that of a command and control function.

I want to draw everyone's attention in the chamber to what has happened to question period over the last 30 years. Before the 1980s, any member of the House could pose a question of the government. After the leader's round was finished, any member of the chamber had the fundamental right to rise in his or her place and ask a question of the government, both opposition and government members. Therefore, six or seven members would pop up at once, like we do in questions and comments, to ask questions of the government.

After the introduction of television in 1977, a significant change to question period was introduced by Speaker Sauvé. According to Mr. Marleau, the former clerk of the House, in the interests of making things more orderly, the speaker decided to request lists of members from the respective parliamentary parties in order to better organize question period. This was done to assist the speaker in scheduling and coordinating which members were going to ask what questions during the 45 minutes of oral questions. It was not intended to serve as a stripping away of the power of recognition of the speaker to recognize or not recognize members during question period. It was not intended to give command and control over who got to ask questions during question period in the chamber.

Over the last 30 or so years, that is precisely what has happened. Today in the chamber, members of Parliament cannot ask questions of the government to hold it to account. They no longer have that fundamental right, whether they sit on that side of the aisle or on this side of the aisle. The only people who get to ask questions in the chamber during oral questions are those who are given approval by the House leader or party whips, who create these lists which are submitted to you, Mr. Speaker, before 2:15 p.m. on Monday through Thursday and before 11:15 on Friday.

Despite Speaker Jerome's ruling of April 14, 1975, that it is a right of members to put questions to the government during question period, today members of the House of Commons no longer have that right to ask questions of the government and to hold it to account.

That shift from the early 1980s to the present during question period from a coordinating and scheduling function on the part of the House leaders and party whips to you, Mr. Speaker, to one of command and control over who gets to ask and answer questions in this place, is instructive of the question in front of us today as to what we should do with members' statements. That shift has eroded the basic principle on which modern Canadian political institutions are based. That is the basic concept of responsible government, the idea that the executive branch of government is accountable back to the legislature and that members in the House have to play that fundamental role, including members in the government caucus.

This shift from scheduling and coordinating to command and control has stripped members of the right to ask questions during question period and is now threatening to do the same during members' statements. It has also eroded the power to hold the government to account, the fundamental concept of responsible government. It is something that our forebears felt important enough that a monument to Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine and Robert Baldwin, figures in Canadian history in building these institutions, was erected behind Centre Block overlooking the Ottawa River, proclaiming responsible government in Canada.

It is something that the rebellions of 1837 were all about, the idea that crown prerogative was not unfettered and unchecked and that ultimately, the executive branch was accountable to the legislature.

In short, the idea that the executive is accountable to members of a legislature is a fundamental underpinning of modern political institutions in Canada and the shift that has happened in question period and is starting to happen in members' statements is eroding this very fundamental principle. This shift, Mr. Speaker, has also eroded your power of recognition in a corollary of which is your power of non-recognition.

Some in the chamber have argued that parties have the right to discipline members and that parties have the right to curtail members if they say something the party has not approved of, and I agree with that principle. I agree that parliamentary parties, parliamentary leadership, has the right to discipline members for saying things either in the chamber or outside the chamber of which they do not approve. That discipline could involve removing a member of a parliamentary committee. That discipline could involve removing a member as chair of a committee. That discipline could involve removing a member from his or her duties associated with Parliament. However, that discipline should take place after this fact of speaking in the chamber and, most important, that discipline cannot include preventing a member from speaking in the chamber.

It is clear to me that there exists a case of privilege. I ask that you, Mr. Speaker, see it also and that you take over the scheduling of S. O. 31 members' statements from the party whips, party house leaders, restore your powers of recognition during members' statements and strengthen the House of Commons.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a member of Parliament for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell and I am pleased that you have recognized me as such regarding this matter before you concerning member statements, also known as S. O. 31s, and the rights of members of Parliament, a matter which is of interest and which affects each member in the House.

As an elected member of Parliament, I greatly value our right to freedom of speech in the House. It is a right that is strongly protected and defended by the rules governing this place. O'Brien and Bosc on page 59 states that:

The rights accorded to the House and its Members to allow them to perform their parliamentary functions unimpeded are referred to as privileges or immunities.

Also, on page 89 it states:

By far, the most important right accorded to Members of the House is the exercise of freedom of speech in parliamentary proceedings.

It goes on to say:

[...] a fundamental right without which they would be hampered in the performance of their duties. It permits them to speak in the House without inhibition, to refer to any matter or express any opinion as they see fit, to say what they feel needs to be said in the furtherance of the national interest and the aspirations of their constituents.

It is evident that members have certain privileges and immunities to allow the maximum use of this freedom of speech. Some members have risen to indicate to you, Mr. Speaker, that there have been occasions where they have been denied the opportunity to raise certain subject matters in their S. O. 31 statements. It is clear that the House considers it extremely important for an MP to have freedom of speech to the fullest extent possible and that this fullest extent would naturally extend to the freedom to raise a subject matter on which to speak, as one cannot utilize the freedom of speech privileges and immunities established in the House if one cannot rise to speak in the first place. I believe this highlights the importance of the S. O. 31 issue presently before you.

S. O. 31s are one of the only opportunities that a member of Parliament has to speak to a matter that is not constrained by a debate already before the House. For example, when debate is on a particular bill or motion, an MP cannot raise a completely unrelated matter. I know you are as generous as possible, Mr. Speaker, in allowing latitude in terms of an MP's remarks in debate, but if the matter raised by the MP is not germane to the debate, he or she would be ruled out of order. In other words, when an MP rises to speak in the House, his or her comments must be relevant to the matter in front of the House at that time except when giving an S. O. 31.

The S. O. 31 offers a unique opportunity to an MP to speak on any matter and, as a result, MP privileges in this regard must be protected. Allow me to provide a concrete and relevant example of what I mean.

Last Thursday, March 28, the procedure and House affairs committee tabled a report in this place that rendered Motion No. 408 non-votable, a most surprising and disappointing determination. As the House knows, Motion No. 408 reads as follows:

That the House condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, there are clear criteria that have been established by the committee on procedure and House affairs by which bills and motions may be determined to be votable or non-votable. When Motion No. 408 is reviewed with respect to these criteria, one readily arrives at the conclusion that Motion No. 408 is votable and should have been deemed so.

Motion No. 408 being a motion and not a bill is an expression of condemnation, the type of which the House has expressed many times on a wide variety of issues. By inviting the House to condemn discrimination against females, Motion No. 408 is within the federal jurisdiction and it does not violate the Constitution Acts. An independent analyst, whose responsibility it is to research and be knowledgeable in these matters, was clear that Motion No. 408 did not concern questions that were substantially the same as ones already voted on by the House of Commons during this current session of Parliament. As the member for Langley pointed out, no other piece of government or private member's business has called on Parliament to condemn discrimination against women and girls occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination.

Last, I would point out that there is widespread support for a motion such as Motion No. 408, and I think we saw this when the CBC televised its program on the airways.

Motion No. 408 is the first motion of its kind. It clearly meets the criteria for votability and it is therefore votable, and herein lies the problem and the importance of freedom of speech for S. O. 31s. In short, I do not support the determination that Motion No. 408 is non-votable. It is important to note as well that this determination of non-votability infringes on my right to vote on a matter before the House that should be votable. In fact, the right to vote on a matter is the natural extension of the right to freedom of speech.

In one sense, voting for or against a motion or bill is the final word in a debate. It is a decisive action upon a matter before the House, an action that is deliberately taken once all is said and done, so to speak.

Motion No. 408 should be votable and I believe many Canadians and members in this place know it should indeed be votable.

As I mentioned, the determination of non-votability infringes upon the natural conclusion of freedom of speech, that of being able to vote on a matter. Because of this, it is my hope that the member for Langley will appeal this determination of Motion No. 408 being non-votable to the House so MPs may reflect upon their rights and privileges and correct what has taken place.

The matter I have just spoken to relates to S. O. 31s, in that I am now receiving correspondence from constituents asking my view on this matter. Do I agree or disagree with the determination of non-votability? Do I defend this decision? Have I spoken publicly on this? This is indeed the challenge. If I were not to speak on this matter, it would be reasonable for my constituents to assume that I support the finding of non-votability, when this is clearly not the case. This would apply to my colleagues in all parties if they too disagreed with Motion No. 408 being declared non-votable and were prevented from saying so in this place.

Today I am fortunate to participate in the question of privilege raised by the member for Langley, but if there were no relevant question of privilege before the House, the only other opportunity to raise such a matter would be in an S. O. 31 statement. For this reason, a member of Parliament must have maximum freedom of speech in speaking to an issue such as this, but more important, being able to raise it in the first place. I say this because it is conceivable that, if a member were prevented from being able to speak about Motion No. 408 itself, it is equally conceivable that they could also be prevented from speaking about their views on the non-votability of Motion No. 408.

It would indeed be an infringement on the rights and privileges of a member of Parliament if members were not able to rise to clarify their position on such important matters, or to give voice to the concerns of their constituents.

Lastly, it is possible for the current S. O. 31 convention to change and I would suggest that it would be possible for you to manage S. O. 31s in the same way as you do petitions, Mr. Speaker. When the time comes to table petitions, it is you, Mr. Speaker, who recognizes MPs.

As Speaker, I have noted you very capably find the appropriate balance by rotating between members of different parties. I also note there is no pre-screening of petitions before they are tabled. A member simply rises and when recognized, tables a petition, and it can be on any subject.

I conclude by stating that I support the question of privilege raised by the member for Langley and that members must be afforded the greatest opportunity in latitude in being able to raise important matters and fully represent those Canadians they have been elected to represent.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I thank both members for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell and Wellington—Halton Hills for their comments on this question currently before the Chair.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Budget 2013

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have this opportunity to address the NDP's high-tax agenda. It is shameful that the NDP, which has voted against every single tax cut we have introduced since 2006, would question our government's record on keeping taxes low with today's motion.

Moreover, to suggest the NDP, if given the opportunity, is not planning to raise taxes on Canadians or Canadian families is simply preposterous. It is and it will, starting with a $21 billion carbon tax. In contrast, our Conservative government has a proven track record of success when it comes to supporting families, individuals and small and medium-sized businesses. One aspect of this support is our government's commitment to keep taxes low. We strongly believe that lower taxes for families, individuals and businesses fuel job creation, economic growth and long-term prosperity. Small and medium-sized businesses are vital to Canada's economic success. When businesses pay less tax, they can grow and create more high-quality jobs for Canadians, the kinds of jobs necessary to compete in the 21st century economy.

Furthermore, our Conservative government believes in leaving more money in the pockets of hard-working Canadian families. By doing this, the government gives Canadian families more flexibility in making the choices that are right for them. Indeed, since 2006, we have cut taxes more than 150 times, reducing the overall tax burden to its lowest level in a half century. This is no exaggeration. We have cut taxes in every way government collects them. This includes personal taxes, consumption taxes, business taxes, excise taxes and much more, making Canada a magnet for new jobs.

Since the NDP does not seem to realize this and seems to have forgotten that it voted against all of those tax reductions, I will take a few moments to highlight some of these measures. Since 2006, we cut the lowest personal income tax rate to 15%; we increased the amount Canadians can earn without paying tax; we reduced the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%, putting an estimated $1,000 back in the pockets of an average family; we introduced and enhanced the working income tax benefit; and we introduced the tax-free savings account, the most important personal savings vehicle since RRSPs. The list goes on and on.

Now the NDP might be asking, “You have cut taxes, but are tax cuts good for Canadian families?” Interestingly enough, the leader of the NDP does not really believe tax cuts are all that important to Canadians. In fact, back in 2007, after we cut the GST to 5%, he said, “I don't think the average Canadian is going to see that much of a change”. The leader of the NDP could not have been more wrong. Canadian families like low taxes, not high NDP taxes. The NDP should take note of the measures I have just described, as well as the other tax-reduction measures our government has introduced. Indeed, the leader of the NDP might be interested to know that as a result of these measures, a typical family of four is saving over $3,200 in taxes each year. Not only that, but this has helped remove more than one million low-income Canadians from the tax rolls. I am sure those one million Canadians notice a change.

I am sure Canadian seniors noticed a change. Indeed, since 2007, over $2.7 billion in annual tax relief has been provided to seniors and pensioners. These include introducing pension income splitting, increasing the age credit amount by $2,000, doubling the pension income credit to $2,000, increasing the amount the GIS recipients can earn through employment without any reduction in GIS benefits, increasing the age limit for RRSPs to RRIF conversion to 71 from 69, introducing the largest GIS increase in more than 25 years, and much more.

Overall, we have removed more than 380,000 seniors from the tax rolls. In fact, a single senior can earn at least $19,892 and a senior couple at least $39,784 before paying any federal income tax. That is a proven record behind which I am happy to stand.

I would much rather take that record to Canadians than try to justify imposing a $21 billion carbon tax that would raise the price of everything Canadians buy, everything from gas to hydro to groceries.

I will never understand why the NDP's answer to everything is tax, tax, tax. On this side of the House, we believe in low taxes and keeping more money in the pockets of hard-working Canadians and their families.

One way to keep taxes low is ensuring that all corporations and Canadians pay their fair share of taxes. That is why our government has been diligent both at home and abroad to ensure everyone pays their fair share of taxes and to crack down on those few who attempt to game the system or break the rules.

Since 2006, and including measures proposed in economic action plan 2013, our government has introduced more than 75 measures to improve the integrity of our tax system. The tax loopholes we are closing would amount to over $2.5 billion in 2013-14 and more than $2.6 billion in 2014-15. Not only would this help keep Canada's tax rates competitive and low but it would keep Canada's tax system fair and equitable.

To be clear, we would be closing tax loopholes that a select few are exploiting to avoid paying taxes. Why would the NDP stand up for tax cheats? Loopholes do not serve an economic purpose. They do not grow our economy and they do not put people back to work. Why would the NDP stand up for tax cheats? By closing loopholes and putting an end to this type of exploitation, we can keep taxes low for Canadian families, seniors and businesses. Why does the NDP stand up for tax cheats?

Our government uses a variety of tools to identify and combat international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. Economic action plan 2013 proposes a number of measures to enhance the CRA's ability to track down international tax cheats. Specifically, our government announced the stop international tax evasion program, a program that would allow CRA to pay individuals who have knowledge of major international tax non-compliance.

In addition, Canada has one of the most extensive tax treaty networks in the world, with 90 tax treaties and 16 tax information exchange agreements now in force, 3 other TIEAs signed and another 11 TIEAs under active negotiation. Through these agreements our government would make sure that everyone, whether at home or abroad, pays their fair share. That is the bottom line, and it is the right thing to do.

Unfortunately, the flaws with the NDP motion do not stop there.

In tabling the motion, the NDP has demonstrated a clear lack of understanding around how tariffs actually work, as well as the action our government has taken to reduce tariffs and expand our pro-trade agenda.

Let me begin by highlighting our government's record on tariff reduction.

Since 2009, our government has eliminated close to 1,900 tariffs and concluded 6 free trade agreements. Not only is this providing $590 million in annual tariff relief for Canadian consumers and businesses, but this action made Canada the first G20 country to become a tariff-free zone for manufacturers.

However our tariff reductions do not stop there.

Economic action plan would build on our government's strong record of reducing tariffs for consumers and retailers by announcing the elimination of tariffs on baby clothing, hockey gear and most sports and exercise equipment. Overall this would translate into $76 million in savings, a move welcomed by the president and CEO of the Retail Council of Canada who referred to these changes as “a win-win-win for consumers”. That is what I call real action.

Switching gears for a moment, I would be remiss if I did not take this time to clear the air on the issue of iPods and MP3 players, an issue the NDP clearly does not seem to understand. To be absolutely clear, there is no iPod tax; there never was and there certainly never will be under this government. Let me say it again: MP3 players, iPods and devices of this sort would continue to come into Canada duty-free. That is the way it was before economic action plan 2013, and that is the way it would continue to be after economic action plan 2013.

Instead of spreading lies, the New Democrats should do their homework and be honest with the Canadian people. Unfortunately, we have seen this before with the NDP, always eager to cast allegations of hypocrisy and lies without checking the facts. Well I have checked the facts, and the simple fact is that the opposition parties are the only ones pushing for an iPod tax. This just shows their lack of understanding of how tariffs work, including the general preferential tariff.

Allow me to dedicate some of the time I have left to enlighten my NDP colleagues on how the GPT operates. With respect to the GPT, let me be clear. This is a foreign aid program that was introduced in the 1970s to help the world's developing countries. At its foundation, this program was designed to help developing countries increase their exports. I do not think anyone in this House would deny that the world is very different today from 40 years ago. It is for that reason that many of the countries initially part of this program no longer need preferential access to Canada's market to grow their economies. For example, countries like Brazil, Russia, India and China have developed substantially over the past 40 years and today boast economies that are highly competitive.

I should note that this does not mean we are getting rid of this program. The GPT will provide incentives for Canadians to import from more than 100 countries remaining as beneficiaries of the program.

What does this mean? It means more support for the poorest countries and more incentives for other countries to sign free trade agreements with Canada; so in addition to the creation of jobs, this highlights yet another reason why our government has pursued an aggressive free trade agenda. I ask that the New Democrats listen to the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters association on a recent edition of CTV's Question Period, when it stated:

This government eliminated tariffs on all inputs used by manufacturers, all machinery and equipment items we need to import.... This is a government that in general has been getting rid of tariffs, but we had to update the general preferential tariff. I mean it's 39 years since we updated it. It was meant to help developing countries...we were giving them preferential tariffs while their per capita GDP is higher than Canada's. The solution is what the government is doing, trying to negotiate free trade agreements with countries around the world so that we not only drop our tariffs but they drop their tariffs as well.... ...we're pushing the government to negotiate trade agreements that provide reciprocal benefits to both Canada and our trading partner.

I should note that since 2006 our government has implemented six free trade agreements with nine countries, free trade that the NDP has opposed. Why is the NDP ideologically opposed to free trade? Is it because it expands markets for Canadian business and creates more jobs for Canadians, or is it because it provides consumers with cheaper goods? As a matter of fact, these trade agreements have resulted in the elimination of some $63 million in annual tariffs on imports from these countries.

Given this, can members imagine what benefits we could realize through a free trade agreement between Canada and Europe? In fact, it is estimated that such an agreement would eliminate an additional $750 million in annual tariffs on imports from the EU. However, again the NDP is opposed. Indeed, the NDP's Canada–U.S. border critic backed the Canadian Auto Workers union's call to end trade negotiations altogether with the European Union. Once more, we have proof positive that the New Democrats have no interest in creating more jobs for Canadians or reducing the cost of goods for Canadian families.

It is very clear that keeping taxes low is a central element of Canada's economic action plan. Economic action plan 2013 is the next chapter in our government's long-term plan to strengthen the Canadian economy in an uncertain world and create jobs and growth while keeping taxes low for families and businesses, all while balancing the budget by 2015, and nothing shrinks deficits faster than a growing economy. To be clear, we will take no advice from the brothers and sisters in the NDP who believe we can tax our way to prosperity. In fact, they should think again.

Just this past weekend, the New Democrats had Joe Stiglitz, an economist from the U.S., speak at their convention. This is the same Joe Stiglitz who said that Greece in 2010 was having a “short-term liquidity” problem, claiming that Greece would not ever be in default.

At the same time, he was an adviser to the Greek government.

We will certainly not follow in the footsteps of socialist economies that crumbled under the weight of their own debt. Bloated government and imposing new taxes on Canadians and job-creating businesses is simply not the answer.

The measures our government has introduced since 2006 are not driven by politics. Our government remains focused on what matters most to Canadians: jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. That is the bottom line.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the member's comments. However, the crux of the matter is that consumers will be paying more for bicycles, baby carriages, school supplies, household goods, wigs, housewares, iPods and MP3 players, and the list goes on. There are at least 1,300 items on the list.

What is interesting is that the minister would not have even had to raise all of these taxes on Canadians if he had watched his own spending. I will give an example.

It was not easy to come up with these numbers because everything is somewhat hidden with the current government. However, the total that I have with respect to the G8 legacy fund money that the minister spent in his own riding of Parry Sound—Muskoka is $45,758,945. That is how much taxpayers' money he spent on his own riding. I will outline all of that spending for everybody in the House and those watching on television later today. It should be a good time, and I ask everyone to listen in.

My question to the member is this: when did he finally decide that it was okay for the President of the Treasury Board to spend $45 million of taxpayers' money in his own riding?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the general preferential tariff. There are so many falsehoods in his remarks that I do not even know where to begin, but let me start by saying that the current regime of general preferential tariffs that Canada has in place was negotiated in 1972, which was a very different year and time from 2013. The countries of India, China and Brazil were developing economies at that time. The GPT is a foreign aid program. As those countries have now developed, the Canadian taxpayer should not be subsidizing the manufactured goods of China, India and Brazil for import into Canada.

For example, the United States renegotiates its general preferential tariff agreements every two years. It is about time that we tackled that here in Parliament and under this government, so that Canadian taxpayers will pay less for goods and services and not more, as would be the case if the NDP were in power.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I heard quite an exaggeration of reality from the member when he referred to the government and the overall debt as if the Conservatives knew how to manage the debt or cared about it. At the end of the day, what we will find is that they had a handsome surplus, and they converted that billion dollars of surplus into record billions of dollars of deficit. I thought that was the whopper of the year.

That said, does the member not recognize that most people in Canada would recognize that tariffs are another form of tax? Government revenues will be going up because the government chose to put a tariff on 1,300-plus items. Does he not recognize that as a form of tax? Would he at least offer some acknowledgement of that fact?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that in the 1990s, during booming economic times, when the unemployment level never fell below 7.2% during that decade when the Liberals were in power, they chose to balance the budget on the backs of Canada's seniors, students and children by gutting our social programs and moving them to the responsibility of the provinces and gutting the employment insurance program.

We have no lessons to learn from the Liberal Party. In fact, in 2005, when we proposed $1,200—that is $100 a month—for child care, it was the Liberal Party that said, “Don't give people $25 a week to blow on beer and popcorn”.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has brought the discussion around the GPT to a very interesting point. Maybe the member would like to comment that the NDP wants to continue foreign aid to China in order to boost its economy while simultaneously proposing a very real domestic tax, a carbon tax, that would hurt Canadians trying to purchase goods and services. Maybe he would like to comment on that circumstance.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP had the opportunity to vote with us to lower 150 taxes. The NDP chose not to. In fact, the NDP wants to increase our taxes, starting with a $21 billion carbon tax and then imposing a $34 billion increase in taxes for families and small businesses. New Democrats are tax-fighters all right, but they are fighting for higher taxes.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of working with the member for York Centre on the Standing Committee on Finance. We have had some differences of opinion on his overly literal interpretation of the works of Adam Smith. I would just like to mention in passing to him that man never hung around with dinosaurs.

Mr. Mike Moffatt, professor of business, economics and public policy at Western University's Richard Ivey School of Business, told the Globe and Mail that these tariff increases could be a regressive tax.

That is important. Would my colleague like to comment on that?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that taxes are regressive, and that is why we are lowering them. That is why I would invite the NDP to support every measure we have proposed in the House to lower taxes.

Canadians know better what to do with their hard-earned income than the cadre of New Democratic socialists who think that they know better what people should be doing with their hard-earned money. No; we on this side believe people who work for their money should keep more of it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to the point that the hon. member for York Centre raised in his speech, which was that the government in no way has raised any taxes at all.

Well, by most definitions, tariffs are taxes, and so are payroll taxes. There has been a very steep increase year on year of employment insurance, which has to be paid by both the worker and by the employer. These are increased taxes.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if that was a question or a comment, but once again, our government is committed to lowering taxes. We are achieving jobs, growth and long-term prosperity through lowering taxes.

On the other hand, the NDP and the Liberals argue in favour of higher taxes. That is something we on this side oppose. That is something that Canadians oppose. We remain focused on what is important to Canadians—jobs, growth and long-term prosperity—and achieving it through lower taxes, not higher taxes.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier this afternoon.

I want to thank the member for Victoria for putting forward this motion for debate today for a couple of reasons.

First, the motion goes to the heart of what we as the official opposition are meant to be doing in the House, which is holding the government to account for the promises that it made to Canadians and identifying promises gone unfulfilled or breaches of promises made. This is a government with such little respect for Canadians and for the truth that there is no shortage of these.

In this instance, I am talking about the Prime Minister's promise not to raise taxes and his breach of that promise, a breach repeated by his finance minister while tabling the budget and, in turn, by his parliamentary secretary. Budget 2013 contains almost $8 billion of tax increases on nearly 1,300 types of goods, from hospital parking to bicycles to baby strollers to coffee makers to other goods and services, including MP3 players and iPods.

Second, the motion invites us to talk about what could be done, about what would be possible if only we had a government with some sense of policy innovation or creativity, if only we had a government with an eye to the future of this country, or if only we had a government that was sufficiently humble to look at what other governments are doing around the world as those governments turn their eyes to the future.

I want to take a look this afternoon at just one of the almost 1,300 consumer products that are going to become more expensive because of the tax increases in this budget. That product is the bike.

It is estimated that the cost to Canadians as a result of the government increasing the tariff on bicycles from 8% to 13% will be in the range of $5 million to $6 million annually. It is, in fact, a $5 million to $6 million disincentive to a healthy, active, environmentally friendly form of transportation at precisely the time when cities across this country—including, if not especially, my own city of Toronto—are struggling enormously with the very costly and frustrating combination of traffic congestion and underfunded, and consequently overcrowded, public transit.

When we as a country are struggling with a high and growing rate of obesity and chronic diseases related to obesity and the world is hurtling toward a radically different future owing to greenhouse gas emissions and the consequent climate change—a problem the government refuses to even acknowledge, much less address—enter the bicycle, the modest bike, as at least part of the solution to these issues.

I have spoken many times in the House about the economic implications of traffic congestion in Toronto. As of 2006, Toronto's traffic congestion was estimated to cost the economy about $6 billion per year in lost productivity. The Toronto Region Board of Trade has further reported that this cost will increase to $15 billion by 2030 in the absence of some significant change. The members of the Toronto Region Board of Trade identify the issue as their greatest concern. It is a problem that ought to be addressed, and quickly.

With respect to the issue of health, Toronto Public Health's 2012 report, entitled “Road to Health: Improving Walking and Cycling in Toronto”, advises that 70% of Torontonians commute by car. Toronto Public Health further advises that about 55% of all trips in Toronto are less than seven kilometres and are therefore conducive to cycling. We know that physical activity aids in preventing or ameliorating a number of conditions, including obesity, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and cancer. Collectively, improved health leads to lower health care costs, and Toronto Public Health estimates that savings in direct medical costs arising from citizens engaging in active forms of transit such as walking and cycling would provide a further economic benefit of $110 million to $160 million each year in Toronto alone.

The environmental impact of Toronto's traffic congestion is huge. For every litre of gas burned, approximately 2.4 kilograms of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere. That adds up quickly in a city of nearly three million people stuck in traffic.

Data from the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group shows that Toronto emits 29.1 million tonnes annually of CO2 alone. Of that amount, 35% comes from transportation. It is by no means just a Toronto problem. Countries and cities around the world are confronting the same challenges and making their own unfortunate contributions to climate change.

However, countries around the world are also recognizing that within the simple, modest bicycle is embedded great opportunities to mitigate these challenges. In part, the response has been one of investing in cycling infrastructure. Denmark is a prime example. In April 2012, Denmark opened its new bicycle superhighway to facilitate commutes between Copenhagen and its outer suburbs. The first of 26 such planned routes, it aims to encourage more and more citizens to choose cycling over other methods of travel.

The city of London, England, is on a similar path. About his revolutionary cycling plan for the city, London's mayor said “Cycling will be treated not as a niche...but what it is: an integral part of the transport network”. London's transport commissioner adds “this is about so much more than routes for cyclists. It is about the huge health and economic benefits that cycling can bring”.

It is in part at least, with an eye to the economic benefits, that a number of countries have implemented plans to make cycling, in fact, less expensive. That is the opposite of what the government is doing with budget 2013.

In 2009, for example, Ireland initiated a national cycle to work program. This program provides a way for employers and employees to receive tax breaks for getting out of cars and onto bikes as their means for commuting to work. Under the program, the benefit, that is the bicycle itself, is not subject to a benefit in kind taxation. Employees can save up to 52% of the cost of the bike, while employers save about 11% in pay related social insurance contributions.

The United Kingdom, Germany, Denmark and cities in other countries have similar and similarly named programs to incent cycling as a form of commuting.

A study done by the Irish Bicycle Business Association called the scheme in Ireland a “massive success” measured against a number of different criteria, including benefits to local economies and, importantly, net revenue benefit to the government. This was mainly through increases in sales tax revenues from increased bike sales, safety accessories sales and servicing and income tax revenues from job creation.

I noted in a recent column by Lisa Rochon, the architecture critic for the Globe and Mail, about the values of young people living in Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary, that the issue of bike lanes was identified as one of a number of urban features of great importance to the millennial generation. It is reflective of a new way that they want to live in, own and experience their urban environment.

That all of this escapes the Conservative government is reflective of a government that is a poor economic manager, one that fails to understand or care about cities and how they work and one that is deaf to voices young and old alike who want to talk about the future, what the future looks like and what we need to do now to preserve a healthy and prosperous one for coming generations.

Some might say that I have made too much of the bicycle here today. It is, after all, just one of about 1,300 consumer goods that would be made more expensive to Canadians under budget 2013. However, the modest bike represents opportunities for economic growth and productivity, along with healthier living, healthier cities and a healthier planet.