Debates of June 3rd, 2013

Report Stage

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the members over there on the Conservative side do not actually prepare their notes. They are given to them by the Prime Minister's office, but for the member to try to pretend that somehow the government has been good for the environment just defies any reasonable logic.

We saw in the budget bill, according to the Commissioner of the Environment, that the government has gutted 99% of environmental evaluations in this country, which is completely irresponsible.

We have climate-change deniers sitting on the front benches of the Conservative Party. I want to give the member an opportunity. I understand that he did not write the speech. However, for goodness' sake, just to come clean, can he confirm what the environment commissioner said, which is that 99% of environmental evaluations have been eliminated by the government in such an irresponsible way?

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, I think the member opposite is quite wrong in his consideration of what we are not doing for the environment. We have certainly expanded the Nature Conservancy of Canada's role. We have provided it with more money.

As a director of the Toronto regional conservation area, we are able to maintain many of the greenbelts around Toronto, such as the Oak Ridges Moraine, which lies just north of Toronto. We are, with the province and Parliament, protecting these.

I think we are certainly doing our work in ensuring that species at risk are being studied and that we know how to preserve them for future generations.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the previous member's question.

The current Conservative government has an appalling record on the environment. It has gutted 50 years of environmental legislation, repealed the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, gutted the Fisheries Act and went from protecting 32,000 lakes in this country to 97.

The 2008 Climate Change Performance Index ranked Canada 56th of 57 countries. In 2009, the Conference Board of Canada ranked Canada 15th of 17 wealthy industrialized nations. In 2010, Simon Fraser University ranked Canada 24th of 25 OECD countries, and I could go on.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her concern about the environment.

In all countries around the world, we need to balance the environment with the economy. If the economy is not working, it just means further degradation of the environment because there will be less money earned in the economy to do the work that we need to do.

We can see this throughout the development of the 18th and 19th centuries. People started using the environment for economic means, which meant a certain amount of degradation in the economy. We have now reached a point where we know that in a sustainable economy we now have the funds to go back and repair the wrongs of the past.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if my colleague would comment on the fact that our government has been the first government to see the growth of greenhouse gas emissions drop while the economy continued to grow. Contrast that to the Liberal government, which saw over a 30% rise in greenhouse gas emissions. To be quite honest, I do not see any results tied to the NDP environmental plan. Our plan has one that actually sees results.

On other statistics, there is the money we have put into funding for cleanup in the Great Lakes and the increase in Canada's parks system by over 50%, which includes Rouge National Park.

Perhaps my colleague opposite could reduce some of the rhetoric that we are hearing on the other side on this file.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased that the Rouge National Park was established as a park by our Conservative government. It is the first time that we actually brought the environment to an urban centre to show people the value of what the environment can do for us.

With respect to Kyoto, I was involved in that. I was in Japan at a time when the Kyoto accord was signed. At the time I thought that it was an impossible task. I wondered why we were signing onto it when there was no hope of ever meeting those standards. I think the Conservative government is much more realistic with the direction we are heading in for the environment.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat funny to be speaking to Bill C-60 at this time of night, in the climate of crisis we are seeing here in Ottawa these days. The current context is no accident. It was brought on by the irresponsible actions of the Conservative government. Greed and partisanship have taken over the Senate because the Conservatives let their supporters get away with too much. This comes at a time when they are asking Canadians to tighten their belts. Oh the irony.

Yet again, we are having to vote hastily on an omnibus bill that amends 49 laws at once. We have learned that 67,000 Canadians will lose their jobs because of this budget, which will also result in a 0.57% decrease in GDP. The fact that the Parliamentary Budget Officer stated that this budget would set the Canadian economy back does not seem to interest the Conservatives. Neither are they interested in impartial information indicating that austerity measures were not necessary for a balanced budget.

The Conservatives are like children who cannot wait for Christmas. They want immediate results because they know that is the only thing they can hope to give to Canadians in preparation for the next election.

This short-term vision does not hide the harsh reality that is catching up with the country and driving down productivity. The Conservatives' amateur approach knows no bounds. If members compare the Minister of Finance's expectations for 2012 with what actually happened, they will understand what I mean. He missed the mark by 35% when it came to economic growth. Is that one of the results of the “science-based approach” the Conservatives are always bragging about?

Given that they question climate change and cut scientists' jobs to keep the truth hidden, it is certainly not surprising that they make up stories about the economy as well. In 2012, Canada's trade deficit hit $67 billion, a real record. Economists predict that the country's performance in 2013 will be even worse.

Obsessed with getting re-elected, the Conservative government is not hesitating to raise taxes in as many areas as possible. It is hard to imagine that a government could be crooked enough to impose additional taxes on bicycles and hospital parking. Only a small group of mean-spirited people could think up such schemes to rob Canadians of $8 billion.

The Conservatives' image is becoming increasingly sullied, but fortunately, more and more Canadians are realizing it. The image of strict managers that they like to brag about is becoming so preposterous that it is hard not to laugh at it.

Indeed, people understand that they need to be wary of a government that tells its citizens to tighten their belts, while it appoints three new ministers with car allowances. Funniest of all is the fact that these three ministers will have to manage departments with significantly reduced budgets.

Bill C-60 will also allow the Treasury Board to intervene in the collective bargaining negotiations of crown corporations, at any stage in the process. This provision completely contravenes the independence of crown corporations and will certainly cause difficulties for all sectors, which will translate into fewer services for Canadians. It will be even worse for non-unionized employees. Indeed, the Treasury Board will be able to change their working conditions at any time.

How about a little pay cut right before Christmas for Mr. Johnson? How about cancelling the vacation time that Ms. Tremblay had approved months ago?

Such measures will affect all Canadians. We have already seen the Conservative government intervene in favour of management during many collective bargaining processes in the past.

This time, we have reached a whole new level, and workers risk losing their hard earned gains in a number of sectors.

The Stalinist control over crown corporations simply confirms that the Conservatives are more controlling than they care to admit, because by doing so, they would show that they think that what belongs to the state belongs to them as the government. However, for decades, the thinking in Canada has been that crown corporations ultimately belong to the public and must operate completely independently to avoid interference and exploitation by unsavoury governments.

It is also ironic to watch diehard Conservatives vote for provisions that increase their governmental power and, at the same time, relax the rules for foreign entities to acquire Canadian companies. We saw that with the purchase of Nexen by a Chinese state-owned corporation. It is now possible for a foreign country to buy a small piece of Canada, to have its own people work there and to be totally above Canadian laws. We will see more and more cases like Nexen, where a more intelligent country's government might slip in a clause preventing Canadians from taking their company to court even though it is operating on Canadian soil. When it comes to the Conservatives, impunity is guaranteed for senators and foreigners, but not for the public.

The banks were already making enough profit by charging people interest that is not subject to any tax. Now the Conservatives have given the banks an advantage over credit unions. The credit unions will have to pay a new tax, and this will also speed up the financial concentration that plagues this country.

These types of measures reveal who the Conservatives are really working for. Canadians' debt level has reached 167%. Prices are increasing on everything, and job security has never been so fragile as 1,400,000 people are out of work. In this climate, people do not dare spend as much as before because they believe that they will not be able to afford to spend one day.

Unfortunately, it would seem that only senators and ministers have job security in this country.

Fortunately for everyone, MPs have to be elected, and when the time comes to vote I hope that the members opposite will start to fear for their jobs because they could be harshly judged by Canadians.

At this juncture, the legal dispute involving the former parliamentary budget officer has still not been resolved. This dispute arose because of the 2012 budget. Passing a new budget implementation bill in this context casts a dark shadow on the financial security of the country under the rule of the Conservatives.

My own doubts were transformed into certainty long ago. The Conservatives are leading us right toward a cliff. I take comfort in knowing that the people will judge them, but I am sorry that they will never have to be accountable for the terrible things they have done to this country because of their narrow, unsatisfactory economic ideology. This government's choices are absolutely irresponsible and will cost us all dearly for years to come.

If it is any consolation, Bill C-60 does include a few measures that the NDP called for, such as tax credits for adoption and first-time donors. Those are positives, but there are too few of them and they are too small to make up for all of the terrible measures in this bill.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. colleague's speech. It seemed to be filled with words like “fear”, “judgment” and “hitting brick walls”; very negative language.

What concerns me, and what I would like this hon. member to answer is this. Do the NDP members have any positive ideas to help grow the economy, to address the labour market skills shortage in this country or to create jobs and expand opportunities, or is the only answer they have to be negative, to travel to the U.S. and denigrate our industries and our chances for economic growth in Canada, and to bury their heads in the sand when it comes to the labour market in Canada?

Does that member have one positive idea to bring forward? When people have no good ideas, all they do is insult. I heard no positive ideas.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, the NDP does have a positive idea. Earlier, one of the government members talked about the worker shortage in her province, but the employment insurance reform will eliminate jobs in Quebec and the maritime provinces, or in other words, in eastern Canada.

Is this employment insurance reform, which will hurt Quebec and the maritime provinces, designed to force people to move west?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what is worse is that the government launched an ad campaign for a program that does not even exist, for a Canada-wide job training program that it has not even started to negotiate with the provinces or the private sector.

Since it took power, this government has spent $100 million a year on advertising. That is $100,000 for every 30-second ad during the NHL playoffs.

Could the member talk about how wasteful this kind of spending is, especially when there is no shortage of demands and needs in Canadian society?

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government has spent a huge amount of money to advertise programs that do not exist. I think that money should have been used for existing needs, to help unemployed workers and our businesses.

Do they have rights like those of the big corporations that come here and can do what they want when they want with human resources and the natural resources we have yet to share with the aboriginal peoples?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Joliette for her speech.

With one omnibus bill a year, I think we could at least expect the government to be consistent from one omnibus bill to the next.

I have a hard time understanding how in one bill it can tell Canadian seniors that they will not only have to wait another two years to retire, but they will also have to properly prepare. Then, in the next omnibus bill the government tells them that it is doing away with the benefit provided by labour-sponsored funds, one of the best tools they have to plan for retirement.

Am I missing something there? Does that make sense?

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, just like my colleague, I cannot follow the logic. There are things I cannot understand because the fund works very well in Quebec.

The Conservatives are increasing the retirement age by two years, cutting employment insurance, and forcing people to work for 70% of their salary and then turning around and telling people to prepare for retirement.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois proposed three substantial amendments to this bill. I would like to hear what the member has to say about these three amendments.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we will probably be voting on these amendments shortly. He will have our answer shortly.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before I recognize the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, I will let the hon. member know there are only three minutes remaining in the time allocated for government orders.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for having the opportunity to speak in the last few minutes to Bill C-60.

I ask my colleagues to look at the economic impact of high debt and deficits on economies in the eurozone and U.S. and they will see that this issue really matters.

Canada's net debt to GDP ratio is 36%, the lowest level among G7 countries, with Germany being the second lowest at 58% and the G7 average 80%. Spending on federal government operations is projected to remain below 2010 levels for the next five years.

Budget 2013 would reduce government spending by an additional $1.7 billion by examining departmental spending, reducing travel costs with the use of technology such as video conferencing, shifting to electronic publishing and making print publications the exception and closing tax loopholes to ensure everyone pays their fair share.

We are doing this while at the same time making new and prudent investments in things like skills training, the new $15,000 Canada job grant, to help more Canadians find high quality, well-paying jobs, the new iteration of the building Canada fund with infrastructure investments of $70 billion and assisting the manufacturing sector with accelerated capital cost allowance.

Another important point that I did not hear this evening was increasing social and economic inclusion of persons with disabilities with a new $222 million investment on top of the existing $40 million.

There is a lot in Bill C-60 that I could speak about but my time is limited tonight. I encourage all members in the House to vote for this measure to ensure that all Canadians benefit from it as quickly as possible.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 12:22 a.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.