Debates of May 2nd, 2013

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

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

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

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Bill C-60—Time Allocation Motion

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

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, not more than four further sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and

that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the fourth day allotted to the consideration at second 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 said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

We will now have a 30-minute question and comment period.

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not too happy to be here yet again. This government has no respect for Parliament or the process, especially when we have before us a huge bill like this, which will amend almost 60 acts.

It is incredible that with its majority, the government feels some need to constantly inflict time allocation upon Canada's Parliament, and this further breaks the record. The Conservatives seem to have no shame whatsoever that they will be known forevermore as the government that shut down debate more often in Parliament than all other governments in Canadian history, governments that I am sure the Conservatives used to loathe.

I can remember that when the Liberals were in power and used the same measure to shut things down just as debate was getting started, the Conservative members who are now the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs got up in this place from the very seats where I am standing and said it was wrong and inappropriate for the government to use the tactic time and time again. Now with these omnibus bills we see the Conservative government further abusing the systems we have in place to hold the government to account, as all members of Parliament are meant to do.

The Conservatives feel absolutely no shame. If they showed a little shame, it would give some hope. If they stood in their places today to say that they were sorry and that it was unfortunate that they have to keep using these bullying tactics in Parliament, but it is what they have to do because of such and such a situation, it would give some hope. However, that is not the case here.

The Conservatives have grown addicted to this particular tactic, apparently thinking that holding government to account no longer is important, yet we have seen the same government lose $3 billion meant for national security. The Conservatives shrug and say, “Big deal”. Well, it is a big deal to Canadians.

Why can the Conservative government not simply allow Parliament to do its job and allow members of Parliament to do their jobs on behalf of their constituents, instead of using these heavy-handed bullying tactics time and time again?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Minister of State (Finance)]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my hon. colleague across the way, but there are a lot of inaccuracies in some of the comments that he made.

This is a very important piece of legislation. This is the blueprint of our government's mandate moving forward, our plan to continue to create jobs, help businesses continue to create jobs, help grow the economy and help the long-term prosperity of this country. We think it is very important that we move this along.

However, the most important factual error that I need to point out is that we are providing five full days of debate before the bill ever goes to committee. As we all know, this is the primary phase, wherein the bill is discussed in the House of Commons and then moves to committee.

We felt that five days was more than adequate. We will then move the bill to committee and, once again, to make sure that we have more than adequate time to debate all of the clauses, the bill will go to more than just the finance committee this year.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I will ask all members henceforth to limit their questions and comments to approximately one minute.

The hon. member for Wascana.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the timing issue here, obviously it is unfortunate when debate in the House is curtailed by the use of time allocation or closure. That impinges upon the democratic right of members of Parliament to adequately consider matters that are before the House.

I look at the calendar on the table before you, Mr. Speaker, and it properly identifies today as May 2. The budget was presented on March 21. It has been well over a month since the budget was presented and yet the legislation to implement a portion of it has only been put before the House in the last couple of days. It seems a bit unusual for the government to move so expeditiously to bring time allocation to the discussion of the budget when it has had well over a month to put the legislation before the House.

I would like to ask the minister a very specific question. He has said the subject matter will go to a variety of committees; that may be useful. Would he go the further step and make sure that the House has the opportunity to vote on each one of the subject heads separately so that we are not confronted with one omnibus vote at the end of it all where we have to vote on soup to nuts all together at once, thus defeating the principle of proper democratic--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The hon. Minister of State for Finance.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out to my hon. colleague from Wascana that the budget was actually tabled in the House almost 50 days ago. There has been ample discussion in question period about some of the items referred to in the budget. There have been answers to clarify many of those questions, and we know that this place always gives good answers to good questions.

I am not sure which Liberal finance minister's budget it was in 2001, but I would remind that hon. member that in 2001 there was a slightly larger bill than the present budget implementation bill and closure was forced on that. Members had three days in the House of Commons to debate that bill. There was no option for it to go to more committees than just one.

I would suggest that through transparency we are providing more opportunities for politicians to debate the budget implementation bill and more opportunities for witnesses to state their concerns or their support for what is in the budget.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that I rise today to ask my colleague a question.

As we know, this government has already broken the record for the most time allocation motions in Canadian history. Today again it has introduced a motion to cut the debate short.

On Monday, for the first time, we had an opportunity to see the content of the budget implementation bill. Today is Thursday and we are being told that we have four days left to study a bill that will amend almost 60 different federal laws.

If we do the math, this bill, which is about 100 pages in length, will amend approximately 10 acts a day. We are being asked to read it on a Monday for the first time and vote on it the following Tuesday. Yet this 100-page bill amends 50 pieces of legislation.

How does my colleague suppose that, as parliamentarians, we will be able to fully examine the bill and make informed decisions?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question provides me with the opportunity to remind him and other hon. members that this legislation, should it be approved, will go to multiple committees after second reading, where it will be studied and witnesses will come forward and speak to the pieces of legislation that need updating.

Our fundamental role as government is to move forward with the plan that we put forward following the recession, a plan that I would argue has been very successful, especially when it is benchmarked against other countries, many of them in recession. Eight of the seventeen large economies in the European Union are in recession while Canada continues to grow. We continue to grow because we have kept the plan for jobs and growth and the long-term prosperity of this country.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening attentively to the comments made from all corners of the House. I was particularly impressed by claims on the side of demagoguery made by the opposition House leader when he referred, for instance, to the Minister of Foreign Affairs speaking in the House during the 37th and 38th Parliament. He was not a member of the 39th Parliament. He never sat in opposition in the House.

Then the member made reference to the Auditor General's report and an amount of money having been lost. Well, sorry, the Auditor General never said any such thing and never wrote any such thing.

That is my comment.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for pointing that out. I knew the House leader for the official opposition was probably referring to another minister from that time who sits on the front bench.

However, it does give me an opportunity to remind hon. members that we are being encouraged to get this done as soon as possible. If I have the opportunity, I will go through a litany of supportive quotes from different associations, different industries and businesses across the country.

In fact, just last evening I met an individual who is on the board of Genome Canada. I was not even aware that he was on the board. He thanked us for the contribution to Genome Canada and highlighted some of the incredible work that it has done. He said the sooner we can get that money flowing, the sooner it can get this science to work. His main theme was in the agricultural sector. There have been incredible breakthroughs through Genome Canada, and we need to get this money out as soon as we can to get it working on that.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is cowardly and insulting.

We keep saying that every time they introduce a bill, everything gets lumped in together. This budget, yet again, contains a large number of provisions. Of course we oppose some of them. That stands to reason. Since they do not have the courage of their convictions, they lump everything in together and try to hide things.

Once again, they want to speed up the process and shove this bill down our throats, assuming that we are all idiots. I cannot understand it. Either this is urgent or the government needs therapy.

If this is urgent, is it because there is a zombie invasion? Is it the end of the world? Is that why we need to hurry and cannot take time for debate? If the government needs therapy, honestly, I would be happy to give out hugs.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thought we put the issue of zombies to bed. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, in answering a question one day, actually did put that fear to bed, so I am glad that is not going to happen.

There are a number of items that I would suggest are very urgent. We consulted broadly with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. It thanked us, first of all, for making the gas tax rebate to municipalities permanent. Then it thanked us for the legislation that we put in place so that municipalities could legally put it in their budgets. However, it did say to us that their costs continue to go up with inflation and asked if there was any way they could have that gas tax fund indexed. We went through it and did the number crunching, and it is feasible. We understand the challenges that municipalities are facing, so we indexed the gas tax fund.

We need to get this legislation through so the municipalities have confirmation that they can continue with their infrastructure projects.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate we have time allocation so early in this process because there are some important questions that a more thorough debate would possibly deal with.

Youth employment numbers are actually five points worse than they were five years ago. Young Canadians are looking for work. Students are looking for work. In fact, last summer we saw the worst summer jobs numbers since Stats Canada started tracking those number in the 1970s. It is estimated hundreds of thousands of young Canadians are working in unpaid internships. Why, at a time like this, is there nothing in the budget implementation bill to help young Canadians find opportunities?

There is one measure, the first-time donor—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. I am limiting questions to one minute. The member will please take his seat.

The hon. Minister of State.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think I understood what the hon. member was getting at, which is the first-time donor's credit.

The hon. member will have heard many witnesses come before the finance committee during its study of charitable giving. He would have heard the challenges of many of the associations that pleaded for more support. The not-for-profit and charitable organizations in this country are feeling the same pinch that many of the companies are. Therefore, we felt this was an appropriate way.

Many young Canadians want to start giving, so this is an opportunity to leverage their charitable giving, which I think is an honourable goal.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is an outrage. I am furious.

This government is asking us to hastily pass the budget. Yet we have learned that there is $29 billion worth of declared, acknowledged tax debt and $11 billion in disputed tax debt, for a total of $40 billion in tax debt. We have no way of knowing how much of that money is going into tax havens. Historically speaking, Statistics Canada carried out that kind of analysis, but it no longer has the budget to do so.

I am outraged because the Conservatives are not asking us to vote on a budget; they are asking us to vote on a sieve. Would it not seem slightly more reasonable to the government member for us look at what we are really spending and what revenue we are missing out on? Could the government be logical or exercise sound management for once?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to tax havens—or aggressive tax planning, as it is referred to by accountants in a more equitable fashion—we need to make sure that taxes are levied fairly across all Canadians. That is our fundamental principle. Honest, hard-working Canadians pay their taxes, and there should not be those who are able to avoid that, whether internationally through holding companies or whatever it may be. Those are challenges that the Canada Revenue Agency is dealing with. It has had a tremendous success rate using our double taxation agreements with many countries, and we continue to add to that list of countries. The foreign investment promotion protection agreements help us on that as well.

There are items in this budget that will help us crack down on tax avoiders.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about a principle that we hold dear here in the House of Commons, the principle of democracy in action. This government, which was elected in a democratic country, is showing a total lack of respect for democracy and the debates that are needed to ensure that bills are studied by representatives of all Canadians, regardless of their party.

Could the parliamentary secretary tell us what he thinks about the fact that this time allocation motion is not allowing Canadians to benefit from the representation they deserve because it does not allow the budget to be fully examined and understood on their behalf?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. The hon. Minister of State has both had a promotion and now a demotion. I think he still remains the Minister of State for Finance.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate that recognition. It is an easy mistake to make because I did fill that role, a role that is covered very ably by our colleague from Saint Boniface, who has handled this file very well.

There are five full days of debate within the House of Commons. Once it moves from this place, it then goes to multiple committees. We are still working on which committees it should go to. That provides an incredible number of hours to debate it.

Rather than standing up and asking process questions, the hon. member had lots of time to ask me a specific question about something that was in the first budget implementation act 1. She chose not to.