House of Commons Hansard #260 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was parks.
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
Before delivering a ruling regarding the report stage of Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, the Chair would like to thank those hon. members who have raised points of order regarding the process followed during the committee's consideration of the bill at clause-by-clause study and in particular, on the impact this might have on the role of independent members in the selection of motions at report stage.
In view of the numerous arguments that have been raised on these questions over the past few days, the Chair believes that a comprehensive ruling on this matter is required. I will return with a detailed ruling on the matter, to be delivered at a later date.
Meanwhile, however, let me simply state that I cannot conclude that the committee has exceeded the limits of its mandate in adopting the process that it has followed and that accordingly, consideration of the bill may proceed. Therefore, my ruling this morning will be limited to the selection, grouping and voting pattern with regard to the motion that appears on today's notice paper.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
There are 80 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-60.
Motions Nos. 5, 21 to 23, 25, 28, 44, 46, 76 and 77 will not be selected by the Chair, as they were submitted to the committee, deemed proposed and subsequently defeated by the committee. Furthermore, Motions Nos. 4, 45 and 75 will not be selected by the Chair, since they could have been submitted to the committee for its consideration.
I would like to reassure hon. members that as stated in my opening remarks, I will address the rationale for the selection of these motions and the other arguments raised in the points of order when I return to the House with a comprehensive ruling.
All remaining motions have been examined and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at report stage.
Motions numbered 1 to 3, 6 to 20, 24, 26, 27, 29 to 43, 47 to 74 and 78 to 80 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.
I shall now propose motions numbered 1 to 3, 6 to 20, 24, 26, 27, 29 to 43, 47 to 74 and 78 to 80 to the House.
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 1.
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 12.
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 15.
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 104.
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 105.
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 106.
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 107.
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 108.
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 109.
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
, seconded by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, moved:
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 112.
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 113.
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 114.
Motion No. 15
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 115.
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
moved:
Motion No. 16
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 125.
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 133.
Motion No. 18
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 134.
Motion No. 19
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 135.
Motion No. 20
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 136.
Motion No. 24
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 137.
Motion No. 26
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 143.
Motion No. 27
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 144.
Motion No. 29
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 147.
Motion No. 30
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 148.
Motion No. 31
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 149.
Motion No. 32
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 150.
Motion No. 33
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 151.
Motion No. 34
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 152.
Motion No. 35
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 153.
Motion No. 36
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 154.
Motion No. 37
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 162.
Motion No. 38
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 167.
Motion No. 39
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 168.
Motion No. 40
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 169.
Motion No. 41
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 170.
Motion No. 42
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 171.
Motion No. 43
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 172.
Motion No. 47
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 200.
Motion No. 48
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 201.
Motion No. 49
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 202.
Motion No. 50
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 203.
Motion No. 51
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 204.
Motion No. 52
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 205.
Motion No. 53
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 206.
Motion No. 54
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 207.
Motion No. 55
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 208.
Motion No. 56
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 209.
Motion No. 57
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 210.
Motion No. 58
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 211.
Motion No. 59
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 212.
Motion No. 60
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 213.
Motion No. 61
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 214.
Motion No. 62
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 215.
Motion No. 63
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 216.
Motion No. 64
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 217.
Motion No. 65
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 218.
Motion No. 66
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 219.
Motion No. 67
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 220.
Motion No. 68
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 221.
Motion No. 69
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 222.
Motion No. 70
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 223.
Motion No. 71
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 224.
Motion No. 72
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 225.
Motion No. 73
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 228.
Motion No. 74
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 229.
Motion No. 78
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 230.
Motion No. 79
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 231.
Motion No. 80
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 232.
NDP
She said: Mr. Speaker, I rise yet again to speak on Bill C-60, another Conservative omnibus bill that crams changes to more than 50 pieces of legislation into it, and which ought to have been split up and studied at various different committees.
This bill will have wide-ranging impacts, affecting everything from the price of an iPod to credit unions to foreign aid to journalistic freedom of the CBC. This omnibus budget bill makes changes to the temporary foreign worker program, to the Investment Canada Act, and it merges the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade with CIDA, the Canadian International Development Agency.
This bill also raises taxes on Canadians by introducing tax hikes on credit unions, increasing the taxes on small businesses, and increasing the taxes on thousands of products that Canadians use every day.
It took generations to establish institutions like the CBC and the central bank, and some of these institutions are the envy of the world. However, this bill would undermine the collective bargaining process at many of our crown corporations, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, Via Rail, Canada Post, the CBC and the Bank of Canada.
These institutions have always been ambitious, but theirs was a vision grounded in hope and optimism. Canadians have always known that as a country we are stronger together.
Our leaders once had the wisdom to accept the independence of the Bank of Canada and the integrity of the CBC. They saw this independence as an asset to our country, not a threat to the power of government.
However, the Conservatives do not trust Canadians. Bill C-60, like omnibus bills before it, are evidence of this contempt. Many of the changes in Bill C-60 are cynical measures that will give more power to the Conservative government's inner circle while taking away the voice of Parliament from independent bodies, and ultimately from Canadians.
The Conservatives are making rash and ideological choices to push omnibus 3.0 through Parliament without talking to Canadians. If they had, they would have heard the kinds of things that I have been hearing from my constituents.
Parkdale—High Park, the electoral district I represent, is home to many Ukrainian credit unions. I recently met with representatives from the Council Of Ukrainian Credit Unions Of Canada, which has a combined membership of over 60,000 people across the country. The representatives I met with were shocked that they were not consulted in advance about these changes. These tax code changes were absolutely unexpected, and there was no comprehensive review of the sector before these changes were introduced in the budget.
The changes have surprised people and created worry and uncertainty for credit unions and the many Canadians who rely on their services. In my riding, the Ukrainian credit unions invest nearly $1 million annually in community programming, projects and educational initiatives, which will simply disappear as a result of these changes.
There is also a great deal of concern from credit unions from coast to coast about the long-term impact of these changes. We appreciate diversity in the financial sector and the banking sectors of Canada. They are part of modern economy, but I share the concerns of my constituents, and many Canadians, that these changes put that diversity at risk. However, the Conservatives would have had to talk to Canadians to know this.
My office has also been flooded with letters and emails and phone calls from constituents concerned about how Bill C-60 will impact the CBC, our national broadcaster. Thousands of Canadians are writing to tell Parliament that sections relating to the CBC alone are reason to stop this omnibus bill, to make changes to it. Last week I received a letter saying:
I do not want any politician exercising this kind of control over our national public broadcaster.
It is not a state broadcaster.
Another letter put it succinctly, saying, “What can I do; Where do I protest..”.
Canadians have made it crystal clear. They do not support these measures, so why are the Conservatives not listening?
Respected members of the Canadian media are telling Parliament that this omnibus bill needs to be intercepted. Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, the Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec, the Canadian Media Guild, the Syndicat des communications de Radio-Canada and ACTRA are urging all of the Conservatives to use common sense.
On issue after issue it is clear that Bill C-60 is not what Canadians want, and if the Conservatives were listening they would know that. If they had talked to Canadians, they would be hearing the advice of experts like George Smith, who has decades of experience in Canadian business. Smith was once the chief management negotiator for Air Canada, Canadian Pacific Railway and the CBC. At the finance committee Smith stated:
These proposed amendments to the Financial Administration Act, buried in Bill C-60, contradict both the spirit and intent of the Canada Labour Code...and create a role for government in crown corporation collective bargaining which is not contemplated in the Canada Labour Code.
Another issue of serious concern is the impact that this omnibus bill would have on the independence of the Bank of Canada. Last week, I tabled a motion at the finance committee to study the impact of this bill on the Bank of Canada, but the Conservatives voted against it, as they vote against every proposed amendment. However, in a recent article in the The Globe and Mail, Kevin Carmichael, one of Canada's most respected financial reporters, discussed my motion and affirmed that measures in this bill could gravely impact the independence of the bank. Again, the Conservatives are willing to sacrifice the independence of our central bank and the national interest, if it means giving more power to the Prime Minister's Office.
Another measure in omnibus bill 3.0 makes changes to the temporary foreign worker program. These measures are a Band-Aid solution that does not get to the heart of the government's mismanagement of the temporary foreign worker program. Experts and community groups across the country are speaking out against this Band-Aid solution.
When is it enough? Canadians are saying, once again, that they do not support this omnibus budget bill. Canadians have serious concerns with the measures in Bill C-60, and until those concerns are addressed, we cannot support this bill and we will not support this bill.
There are serious issues facing our country, but budget 2013 does not rise to meet these challenges. It does nothing to address unemployment, record levels of household debt or rising inequality. Instead, the Conservative government is more concerned with rearranging power to give more power to its inner circle and less voice to Canadians.
Let us not forget what this budget is not doing. It is not getting Canadians back to work. It will not stimulate growth. Instead, this budget is squarely focused on a job-killing austerity agenda that has made major cuts to the services that Canadians rely on. Putting people to work is clearly the best way to reduce our deficit.
There is no need to play big brother with the Bank of Canada. There is no need to trample on credit unions that so many communities rely on. There is no need to spend millions on an advertising budget that Canadians do not agree with.
Instead, New Democrats know that investing in education and infrastructure, making life more affordable for Canadians, supporting small and medium-sized businesses and creating high-quality, high-paying jobs is the best way to get our economy back on track.
Canadians are counting on us. They are counting on New Democrats, and I dare say all of this Parliament, to show leadership and bring forward the ideas and proposals that will work in the public interest, not the private interest of a few insiders. We need to put Canadians first. This budget does not do that.
I see that my time is up. I look forward to the questions and comments from my colleagues.
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to our amendments to Bill C-60.
I figured the members would be interested in talking more about this during questions and comments, so I had to hurry. Still, I will use my time to talk about why the Bloc Québécois's amendments to Bill C-60 are so important.
Once again, the government has tabled a budget implementation bill that makes many changes that are not strictly financial. Unfortunately, under the Conservative government, we have gotten used to seeing measures like these in mammoth bills. Several different committees have had to look at measures that originated with the Standing Committee on Finance and end up going back there.
It is very difficult for both MPs and Canadians to follow exactly what is going on. I think that was the government's plan when it decided to bury so many other measures in the budget implementation bill.
Today, I would like to focus on how some of our amendments relate to the Canada health transfer for Quebec. Other provinces have also expressed disapproval regarding the federal government's cuts to health transfers. The Conservatives say that they have not cut anything. They say that the budget remains the same, that it is stable. However, we are not seeing the 6% increase that was supposed to happen.
Instead of growing by 6% per year, the Canada health transfer will increase in step with economic growth, though it will never rise by less than 3%. Over time, the federal government will reduce funding for health care to a fraction of the 50% it was originally. By 2024, it will probably shrink to 18.6%.
Why do we want to get rid of that clause? We want the health transfer to continue increasing by 6%. We all know that health costs are skyrocketing in Quebec and the other provinces. The Government of Quebec reacted strongly to this decision.
When the federal government announced its plan, Quebec's finance minister reacted. A message on the Government of Quebec's website reads as follows:
While the federal budget confirms technical changes to the equalization program, Mr. Marceau pointed out that Quebec had asked that the caps that were imposed on the program in 2009 be removed. “Because of these caps, Quebec has suffered significant financial losses totalling $7.6 billion since 2009-10. Combined with budget shortfalls resulting from the federal government's unilateral decisions in 2011 regarding health care, Quebec will lose out on $8.6 billion between 2014-15 and 2024-25. Together, these unilateral changes are having a very serious negative impact on Quebec's public finances. The Government of Quebec is calling on the federal government to reverse these unfair decisions,” Minister Marceau stated.
This shows what a serious impact these decisions are having. That is why I am confident that at least the members in the House from Quebec will support our call to delete this amendment on health transfers.
Of course there are other issues related to crown corporations, credit unions and securities, and I would be remiss if I did not address them. Once again, we proposed amendments to make this budget implementation bill more equitable.
In the case of credit unions, this measure was introduced in 1972 in order to allow Canadian credit unions to build capital faster. From our perspective, of course, we are particularly concerned about the Caisses Desjardins.
Most credit unions are subject to a federal corporate tax rate of about 11%, and the additional deduction for credit unions means they can enjoy a lower tax rate, since they are not otherwise eligible for the small business deduction, up to a maximum cumulative amount, which is directly related to the total amounts the credit unions owe their members.
This budget announces plans to phase out this additional deduction for credit unions over a five-year period. It will be completely eliminated by 2017.
On top of the impact on the caisses populaires members, some fear that certain branches will close if this deduction is cancelled.
The Bloc Québécois is proposing to maintain the current deduction formula. I would remind hon. members that budget 2013 is a frontal attack on several aspects of Quebec society. Eliminating the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds that help vulnerable Quebec businesses, such as Fonds de solidarité FTQ and Fondaction CSN, is just another one of the obstacles the Conservative government is putting in the way of small businesses and investors in Quebec.
Clause 15, which deals with this measure affecting credit unions and caisses populaires, should also be eliminated.
As hon. members know, the Bloc Québécois has made securities their issue for a very long time, for ages, or certainly since the current Minister of Finance got it in his head—in a pigheaded way, in fact—to create a Canada-wide securities commission. He wants to impose it on Quebec and the provinces.
Quebec is not the only province that is against this decision. However, this issue got a lot of ink, in Quebec in particular, and it will get even more. The Supreme Court recently made a ruling whereby the provinces, Quebec, have all the latitude they want to take care of their securities commissions themselves.
I have in hand a press release from the Government of Quebec, which slammed this decision when the Conservative Minister of Finance brought down his budget. Mr. Marceau says he does not understand why the federal government is insisting on setting up a Canada-wide securities commission when the rulings handed down by the Quebec Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court are clear. Minister Marceau also said he is surprised that the federal government extended the mandate of the Canadian securities transition office. This is what Minister Marceau said:
Allowing the federal government to insinuate itself in securities regulation, which is within Québec’s exclusive jurisdiction, is out of the question.
It is rather surprising. Well, it is and it is not, since the government's stubbornness is not surprising. However, when the Supreme Court has given a ruling, it is time to give up. The Supreme Court made that decision for a reason, and that reason is just as clear as what is set out in the Constitution: that the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces must be respected.
Yet the Minister of Finance and his friends on Bay Street probably are telling themselves that they are in control, that they have the power and that they are going to shove this much-touted Canada-wide securities commission down the throats of Quebec and the other provinces no matter what the cost.
Take, for example, what is happening around the world. The government often brags that it prevented an economic disaster, but not all countries were so lucky. One of the reasons we were is because of our securities system, which ensures that Quebec and the provinces can have their own control system if they want. The system is working well.
The OECD has said as much about Canada's securities system. Other countries also work this way, so I do not understand why the minister would continue down the path he is taking when everyone, except perhaps his friends on Bay Street and a few provincial governments, are saying that he can have a Canadian commission if he wants but that each province, and Quebec in particular, should continue to have their own control over the securities system.
I have to wrap up, but I would be remiss if I did not mention the federal government's decision to interfere in crown corporations' collective bargaining negotiations. This is a great cause for concern. We have already seen what happened with Canada Post and what is now happening with CBC/Radio-Canada. The government wants to interfere in negotiations. Obviously, CBC/Radio-Canada's concern is maintaining control over its newsroom. This is all also related to Bill C-377, which started making the headlines again yesterday.
In this context, the House must adopt the Bloc Québécois’s amendments to delete those provisions and ensure that the implementing legislation deals with tax measures and leaves out all the other measures that should be introduced in separate bills.
Speaker's RulingEconomic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1Government Orders
Saint Boniface Manitoba
Conservative
Shelly Glover ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my colleague opposite that some of the things he said in his speech are not accurate.
Regarding the securities system in Canada, the Supreme Court clearly said that the federal government has certain responsibilities with respect to the financial markets. We cannot ignore them. Everything in this bill clearly and strictly relates to federal proposals.
Quebec eliminated its special access for credit unions in 2003. Therefore, Quebec agrees with the federal government on that. I simply wanted to clarify the facts about these two matters for Canadians.
What is more, I have many quotes from Quebec organizations, such as the chamber of commerce, which support our 2013 budget. I invite my colleague to read them. This is a good bill and a good budget, and he should support it.
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have always said in the House—and the parliamentary secretary can check the speeches I have given since 2004—that every bill has pros and cons that must be weighed before voting for it.
In this case, we are not debating the budget, but the budget implementation bill, Bill C-60. What I am telling the parliamentary secretary and all members of the House is that amendments should be adopted in order to improve the bill.
With respect to securities, I understand that the member is supporting her Minister of Finance and that she has found some phrases that suit her purposes in the Supreme Court ruling. However, I have an article here that says that the Supreme Court of Canada does not at all agree with the Conservative Minister of Finance.
According to the Supreme Court, “the government...is violating the principle of the division of powers of the Canadian Constitution by attempting to create a national securities commission.”
What more do I have to say?
Speaker's RulingEconomic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1Government Orders
Saint Boniface Manitoba
Conservative
Shelly Glover ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House once again to speak to an important piece of pro-economic and job growth legislation. Of course, I am talking about Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, which is BIA 1, at report stage.
Before I begin my remarks I want to take a moment to personally thank all of my colleagues on the finance committee for their outstanding work in their careful, detailed and timely consideration of the bill, and I mean all of the members from all of the parties, including independent members who came to committee.
Also, I would like to thank all the witnesses who took their time to come before the committee to share their thoughts and opinions about the bill and its importance to the Canadian economy.
I would also be remiss if I did not recognize the member for Edmonton—Leduc, our cherished chair of the finance committee, someone for whom all sides of the House have tremendous respect. They acknowledge his great work, I am sure.
I also want to remind all members and all Canadians that our government went to great lengths to ensure that Bill C-60 and its great measures received the appropriate consideration by the House, especially at committee stage.
That is why five additional committees—industry, veterans affairs, human resources, citizenship and immigration and foreign affairs—undertook comprehensive examinations of select portions of today's legislation. I was quite surprised to hear the NDP critic talk about it not being reviewed by other committees because, in fact, it was.
As all Canadians know, our government's main priority is the economy. Whether encouraging job creation, promoting economic growth or ensuring Canada's long-term prosperity, we focus first on what matters to Canadians.
However, in recent years, Canada has faced a challenging global economic landscape that has resulted in persistent threats from outside its borders, including from the United States and Europe, two of Canada's most important trade partners.
To add to this uncertainty, Canada is dealing with increasingly intense competition from emerging economies, such as China and India. In a constantly changing global market, we must continue focusing on the economy and building on Canada's strong economic plan.
Since the end of the global recession in July 2009, the Canadian economy has created more than 900,000 net new jobs. This is the very best job growth record in the entire G7. Even better, over 90% of those jobs have been full time and nearly three-quarters have been in the private sector.
On top of our very strong record of job growth, Canadians can also point with tremendous pride to other strong economic fundamentals, which include the soundest banking system for over five years, according to the World Economic Forum. We have the lowest net debt to GDP ratio in the G7, and we are the only G7 country to have more than fully recovered business investment lost during the recession. This is great news for Canadians.
What is more, Canada is forecasted to have among the strongest economic growth in the G7 for years ahead, according to both the IMF and the OECD. It is little wonder that all the major credit rating agencies, Moody's, Fitch and Standard and Poor's, have recently reaffirmed Canada's rock-solid Triple-A credit rating.
However, we all understand that Canada cannot afford to be complacent. We cannot rest on our laurels. While our position relative to other countries is strong, now we must take the bull by the horns and build on this strength to secure long-term prosperity for our children and their children and their children.
As the Vancouver Board of Trade pointed out recently, and I quote:
Given the state of the global economy — where we are seeing recessions, drops in national and sub-national credit ratings, and out-of-control deficits —we are truly fortunate in Canada to be contemplating balanced budgets, receiving AAA credit ratings, and growing our GDP.
That is why I am so proud of economic action plan 2013. It is forward looking and would build on our solid record with measured, prudent steps that would help position Canada for long-term success, both today and well into tomorrow. It is a really positive plan for Canadians.
Many elements of this plan will be implemented with this legislation. For example, in order to build a stronger Canadian economy and help promote job growth, Bill C-60 will enable the government to extend tax relief for new investments in machinery and equipment by Canadian manufacturers; index gas tax fund payments to better support job-creating infrastructure projects in municipalities across Canada; extend the mineral exploration tax credit; provide $165 million in multi-year support for genomics research; provide $18 million to the Canadian Youth Business Foundation to help young entrepreneurs grow and develop their firms and their future; provide $5 million to Indspire for post-secondary scholarships and bursaries for first nations and Inuit students; and finally, undertake many other important initiatives on the economic front.
In addition, today's legislation would help families and our communities by promoting adoption through enhancing the adoption expense tax credit; by introducing a new first-time donor super credit to encourage Canadians to donate to charity; by expanding tax relief for home care services; by providing $30 million to support the construction of housing in Nunavut; by investing $20 million in the Nature Conservancy of Canada to continue to conserve ecologically sensitive land; by providing $3 million to support training in palliative care for front-line health care providers; and by committing $3 million to the Canadian National Institute for the Blind to expand library services for the blind and partially sighted. Also, so much more is in this bill.
I would like to note one last time that this legislation is an important step in creating jobs and economic growth, all while keeping taxes low and balancing the budget in 2015. I urge all members to vote in favour of this bill and support jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for all Canadians.
I would caution Canadians who are listening today that they will hear two sides to this very important bill, but I want them to take an opportunity to actually look at the bill. It is available online through the Department of Finance website. The facts speak for themselves. This would be another tremendous leap forward for Canadians and for this country so that we preserve all of those jobs, create more of them and create an environment where business can flourish. Our children would benefit and the grandchildren they have would benefit for years to come.
I just wish the opposition members would reconsider their position to vote against this bill and maybe have some heart today, look into their souls, do what is right for Canadians, do what is right for taxpayers, stop blocking those all-important measures that would help Canadians and vote for this bill.
Dan Harris NDP Scarborough Southwest, ON
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning, the member was talking about consultations and the bill being split up and going to different committees to be reviewed.
At the industry committee, we had the changes to the Investment Canada Act. We had a little over a whopping three hours of consideration of the Investment Canada Act. There are critical changes in this act with the threshold for foreign takeovers going from $330 million to $1 billion. We heard from industry officials that this will lead to a reduction of 50% of reviews of foreign takeovers. We also had representatives from the Canadian Council of Chief Executives come to committee and say that the Investment Canada Act should be changed and modified rarely and with great consideration.
I wanted to ask the parliamentary secretary if she thinks a grand total of three hours constitutes careful consideration of these huge changes, and that “rarely” would mean three consecutive budgets?
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
Mr. Speaker, I am not entirely sure where the member opposite has been all of this time, because it was in fact the Minister of Industry who began many consultations on this when we were looking at some takeovers over two years ago.
This is something that has been looked at for years, not only by the Minister of Industry but also by thePrime Minister himself. He has taken great strides to ensure that what is in the best interests of Canadians is done, regardless of opposition from the NDP, the Liberals or others. We will do what is right for Canadians, as we have done since we took power in 2006.
While I am on my feet, I do want to take a moment to also thank the Liberal member for Kings—Hants, who was instrumental in helping us at finance committee. I know we do not always agree, but there are times when we do agree and I do want to take an opportunity to thank him for his co-operation.
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech intently. She talked about the dozens of consultations that took place between members of Parliament, the Minister of Finance, members of the finance committee and Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
I know that we had finance consultations in my riding, and across Atlantic Canada. Can the member expand on what she heard in those consultations and how we have implemented that in the budget bill?
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
Mr. Speaker, he is absolutely right. The members of the House took great lengths to consult in their home ridings and across Canada. They got back some phenomenal support from some of the stakeholders in their own ridings.
I just want to quote a couple of them if I might. The Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters said:
It's 39 years since we updated [the preferential tariffs]. It was meant to help developing countries. I mean, countries like Hong Kong and Singapore, we were giving them preferential tariffs while their per capita GDP is higher than Canada’s. [...] The solution is what the government is doing: try 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.
This is what we were hearing. We do not want to give special breaks to companies that are working in China; we want to give benefits to Canadian companies. We do not want to give benefits to companies whose booming economies outweigh our own; we are going to do what is right for Canadians.
It is unfortunate that the NDP and the other parties disagree with us.
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
Mr. Speaker, I want to correct the record in the House. I think the hon. member opposite may have misspoken when she talked about consultation.
We heard from witnesses at the industry committee, government officials, in fact. There was no consultation on the changes to the Investment Canada Act. We heard from crown corporations that there was no consultation around changes to their labour relations. We heard from credit unions that there was no consultation. They said very clearly at the committee that no one had talked to them about very significant changes that will be affecting credit unions across the country.
I think what happens, sadly, is that a few members opposite get into phone booths with people who talk and think like them, but they do not get out and listen to the rest of Canadians or do proper consultation.
I would like the member to correct the record.
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
Mr. Speaker, correcting the record is something that I have not heard the NDP do very often because it does not do it very well. The facts speak for themselves. There has been extensive consultation, as mentioned by a number of members who stood here today to ask questions or to make statements. There are some measures in the budget bill that are closing tax loopholes. Of course, we do not consult with those who attempt to avoid paying taxes when we close those tax loopholes.
I might add that I am very disappointed in the member who just spoke. She was particularly difficult to deal with throughout all of this. She continues to be particularly difficult to deal with and continues to mislead Canadians on this. This is a good budget bill. It is a bill that would help Canadians to progress. It would create jobs. It would maintain our long-term prosperity. I just wish the NDP member would have a change of heart.
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-60, the Conservatives' latest omnibus budget implementation act, as well as amendments that are now before the House.
The Liberals continue to oppose Bill C-60 for two key reasons: this legislation threatens the independence of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and it continues to raise taxes on middle-class Canadians in order to pay for the Conservatives’ wasteful spending.
At committee, the Liberals put forward several constructive amendments to help address these concerns. Unfortunately, the Conservatives refused to listen and give decent consideration to these amendments. They refused to entertain any amendments whatsoever, despite the growing evidence that Bill C-60 is in fact deeply flawed.
To give an example of just how flawed the legislation is, Mr. Hubert Lacroix, the president of CBC/Radio-Canada, took the almost unprecedented step of writing to the members of the finance committee and essentially threatening a court case if Bill C-60 passes without amendment. He said that the legislation threatens the independence of the CBC and Radio-Canada. This is what he told us in his letter:
We believe that the proposed amendments to the Financial Administration Act….may conflict with key parts of the Broadcasting Act, our corporation’s governing legislation, and as a result, would reduce the independence that is critical to our operation.
He further stated:
“[The bill]…may give rise to conflicts with the Broadcasting Act and the Charter and compromise the Corporation’s independence.
This could potentially embroil the government, our corporation, and its unions in litigation, a result that could be avoided with an amendment that protects that independence.
We have also heard from tens of thousands of Canadians who have signed petitions and written to their MPs in order to protest the way in which Bill C-60 threatens the independence of the CBC and Radio-Canada.
Unlike the government, Canadians understand that the CBC/Radio-Canada was originally set up as an independent crown corporation in order to shield it from political interference. While the government appoints the board of directors and determines the overall budget of the CBC and Radio-Canada, this cultural crown corporation has always had the independence to determine who should work there and how much they should get paid. This legislation effectively removes that independence.
Canadians have been clear. They do not want politicians to punish reporters or journalists from the CBC and Radio-Canada for asking any of us uncomfortable questions. In an effort to be constructive, Liberals tried to provide the Conservatives with options in order to address these concerns. We proposed a constructive amendment that would have excluded the CBC and Radio-Canada from the measures of Bill C-60.
We also proposed an amendment that would have simply yet clearly protected the independence of CBC and Radio-Canada from the measures in this bill so that the government could avoid a potential legal showdown, but the Conservatives would not listen to reason and consider these amendments. They seem to have become completely deaf to the concerns of Canadians.
George Smith, a professor at Queen's University, who has also served as a chief management negotiator for the CBC and Radio-Canada, also appeared before the finance committee and was clear that the changes in Bill C-60 are not just bad for labour, they are bad for business. This is what Professor Smith predicts will happen under this legislation:
Relationships between labour and management, which are fragile at best during stressful negotiations, will be strained to the point of breaking with the negative consequence of ensuring labour disputes. There will be costs to the economy. In sum, an already complex process will be complicated to the point where in my considered professional opinion it will become totally dysfunctional.
In addition to threatening the stability of CBC/Radio-Canada, one of Canada's most cherished cultural institutions, as well as endangering labour relations, this legislation actually raises taxes on Canadians. In fact, in each of the last four budgets, the Conservatives have raised taxes on hard-working, middle-class Canadian families. Their latest budget raised taxes by a whopping $3.3 billion over the next four years and a number of these tax measures are included in Bill C-60. Bill C-60 actually attacks Canada's rural and small-town economy with a tax increase on credit unions.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
The hon. member for Kings—Hants will have just under five minutes left when we resume. We are going to move on to statements by members.
The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Speaker, when we say the word “cancer”, everyone pays a bit more attention. It is a scourge that comes in many forms. However, the battle is not just one-sided, and the fight to find a cure continues.
Last weekend, I was honoured to attend our local annual Relay for Life cancer fundraiser. This year's event was held in Eastend, Saskatchewan. We came to raise money for a cure. Southwest Saskatchewan fielded 14 teams, young to old, with 144 participants, and raised over $55,000.
We also came together to celebrate cancer survivors and to honour and remember loved ones. There were 68 survivors in their bright yellow T-shirts, some still receiving treatment and others who have survived cancer for 30 years. It was a night of encouragement, music and fun.
Congratulations to the event co-chairs Joan McNaughton and Yvonne Neufeld, both young ladies who are survivors, for bringing southwest Saskatchewan together to beat cancer.
Nycole Turmel NDP Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 75th anniversary of Gatineau Park.
I want to take this opportunity to draw the members' attention to the importance of rescuing Gatineau Park from the legal grey area it is currently mired in.
Unbelievably, 75 years after Gatineau Park was created, there is still no legal definition establishing its boundaries, even though the park is home to the largest number of at-risk plant and animal species in Quebec. Moreover, there are no objectives at all for managing the park's fragile ecosystem.
Right now, in 2013, federal public lands in Gatineau Park can still be sold to private interests without Parliament's consent.
To correct these irregularities, I recently introduced Bill C-465, and I invite all members of the House to support it.
Happy birthday, Gatineau Park.
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour one of northern B.C.'s great athletes.
Robert “Bo” Hedges was born in Fort St. John, British Columbia. He grew up on his family's cattle ranch in the small town of Wonowon. He became paraplegic at the age of 13, and during his rehabilitation he witnessed wheelchair basketball for the first time. Soon after, there was a demonstration at his school and the rest, as they say, is history.
Bo began playing competitively in 1996 and won his first gold medal with Team Canada in Toronto at the World Junior Championships in 1997. He is currently the co-captain of Team Canada's senior men's team, of which he has been a member since 2007. Following Team Canada's gold medal victory in London at the 2012 Paralympic Games, Bo and all of Canada's Paralympic athletes were awarded the Queen's Diamond Jubilee medal.
It is my privilege to honour a great Canadian athlete. Congratulations again, Bo. You have made us all truly proud.
Ted Hsu Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, May marks Asthma Awareness Month. Asthma is a chronic lung disease that causes shortness of breath, tightness in the chest, and wheezing and coughing. Asthma affects more than three million Canadians, including me.
Six out of ten people are living with uncontrolled asthma, leading to a huge loss in quality of life, productivity in the workplace and attendance at schools. It is estimated that 250 Canadians die from asthma every year. Eighty per cent of those deaths are preventable with proper education.
The good news is that asthma can be controlled. Those affected by asthma can live active, symptom-free lives by becoming informed, avoiding triggers and taking medication as needed.
I applaud the work of groups such as the Asthma Society of Canada, whose mission is to educate the public about asthma, promote awareness and encourage those affected by asthma to live healthy, active and productive lives.
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
Mr. Speaker, with the arrival of summer, I would like to wish all those in my riding of Calgary East a very safe and happy summer.
Each year, the communities of Calgary East take full advantage of the summer months, hosting wonderful events. Some of the highlights of this summer include the annual summer FLOP pool party at the Forest Lawn Community Pool in July, which I co-host. In the community of Inglewood during August, we host the Calgary Fringe Festival, where visitors can enjoy the work of artists from many different backgrounds and expressions.
Then there is Globalfest, which lights up the August skies with an incredible pyromusical fireworks display, and has delicious food and dance performances from many cultures in our community.
Of course, in July one of the prides of being from Calgary is hosting the world's greatest outdoor show on earth, the Calgary Stampede, a time for barbecue and flipping pancakes.
I thank all those volunteers in my riding of Calgary East who work hard to make these events possible.
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to congratulate all those who organized and participated in the Relay For Life that took place on May 25 in the D'Autray RCM, as well as those involved in a second relay, which is scheduled to take place on June 1 in the Maskinongé RCM.
The Relay For Life is an opportunity to raise money, celebrate life and fight cancer. It is also a chance to honour survivors and the memory of those who have passed on. It takes enormous courage to fight this terrible disease. Research is key. Researchers have made remarkable progress, but funding is still needed.
My thoughts turn to Jack Layton, who shared this message of hope with those battling cancer: “You must not lose your own hope.”
Once again, congratulations to everyone involved in the Relay For Life. It is a wonderful initiative.