Debates of June 3rd, 2013

Bill C-60--Time Allocation Motion

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before we continue, I want to remind all hon. members that in this question context we do not necessarily follow the normal rotation that the majority of the questions are given to opposition members as opposed to government members, but there can be government members as well.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the minister attempt to justify shutting down debate once again. As the member for Parkdale—High Park said, it has been 39 times that the government has limited the ability of parliamentarians to do their job. In this case, we have only had one hour of debate on the bill at this stage of its reading.

We are talking about a bill that is 115 pages long and amends 49 different pieces of legislation. When the bill had second reading, there was time allocation on that phase. Then it was referred to committees where people were unable to amend the bill. They had very limited time to call witnesses. In some cases, some committees only had one meeting on the legislation. Therefore, I hardly think we have had adequate time to give the bill the kind of study it requires. We saw this with the budget bill and now the budget implementation act.

As well, in this case, the government talks about how it needs to get this moving. Why did it not bring the bill forward earlier? The government controls the agenda for when a bill is called before the House for debate. It had ample opportunity to bring the bill forward so we would have the opportunity to study it in-depth and to call witnesses. Again, as the member for Parkdale—High Park pointed out, there are a number of different critical pieces of legislation that would be impacted by this, for example, the amalgamation of CIDA with foreign affairs and some changes to the way the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation would be able to operate.

Why does the minister think parliamentarians should not have the opportunity to provide due diligence for legislation that will have impact so many other pieces of legislation?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's commentary and question gives me the opportunity in my reply to remind her and the House that there were six parliamentary committees, including finance, that took portions of the bill, had hearings, heard from not only government officials but from business leaders as well. They heard from academics, industry groups, labour groups and many more. Those voices were heard. They were part of the deliberations of the committees, as it should be. Parliamentarians on those committees had an opportunity to familiarize themselves, in detail, with particular portions of the bill to ensure it did get the scrutiny it deserved. Then the bill came back for report stage to this chamber.

At this point, we are simply ensuring there is a framework for further debate on the bill. It is debate that is longer, quite frankly, than on previous budgets in the previous Liberal government. I note the 2001 Liberal budget, which was larger than today's bill, only had three days of debate. We propose to have more than that. Therefore, we are doing our due diligence as parliamentarians.

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

Mr. Speaker, every time there is time allocation on bills, the government breaks all records for that. The time for debate is shortened and that means limited time for members of Parliament, such as myself. I appreciate the hon. President of the Treasury Board said that there were opportunities. I tried to get to all the various committee hearings on Bill C-60, because it is such important legislation. As I am not a member of those committees, I am not allowed to ask questions.

However, the way in which witnesses are being treated in this current administration is an aberration compared to previous parliamentary procedures where in legislative committees witnesses would actually have sufficient time to put forward a 20-minute presentation and take lots of questions. We now have whole panels on many different topics. One panel can cover different topics. It gets five minutes and very little time for actual discussion and certainly no real deliberation, because everything is prescribed by partisan discipline.

In this context, right now on Bill C-60, I will have no opportunity to speak whatsoever. As you know, Mr. Speaker, and I am not protesting this point, none of my amendments or deletions or suggestions for Bill C-60 were chosen. I do not think there will be any speaking opportunity, yet I represent not just my party but my constituents, who have significant concerns.

We heard the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan speak about the changes to crown corporations, the changes to taxation of credit unions and the failure to define national security, one of the few opportunities we have had to put a definition of national security in the Investment Canada Act. None of these points will I be able to give more than the cursory 30 seconds here and there. Because with time allocation, I will have no speaking opportunity.

I would like to ask the hon. President of the Treasury Board if he would speak to his government whip and ask that I be given one of the speaking slots for Conservative members.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will take that under advisement, but some things occurred at committee that were without precedent. It was a positive development that the hon. member was invited to the various committees. She was also invited to table amendments at finance committee and was able to speak at another committee.

As the hon. member knows, her numbers in the House do not technically warrant this. The rules are perhaps archaic, but they are the rules of this place. However, we were able, as a chamber, to come together to give her a greater opportunity.

Sometimes the opposition parties resisted this, I am told. I hope that is not over-reading the case, but it was very positive that the hon. member was given those opportunities. This is a greater opportunity than had been the case in the past.

I think that answers her question from the government side in terms of being fair and reasonable with respect to hearing representation on the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are in debate about the content of the budget bill as far as its strength and scope. Perhaps my colleague could speak a bit to the functionality of a budget implementation bill as far as a requirement to change laws in order to implement the budget. Could he provide some clarity on that?

Second, given that we are debating time allocation, could he provide some clarity for Canadians as to why the passage of the bill is so important to the economic growth of our country?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this gets to the gist of what this is about. Procedure is important, certainly procedural fairness is important, but it is also about content. It is also about ensuring that we can move forward as a country and as a society for more jobs, more opportunity to ensure that security. When it comes to economic security, security of the taxpayer and security of our communities, it continues to be the raison d'être in this place for government activity, particularly surrounding the economic action plan 2013 and budgetary measures. The bill would do that

I will give a few examples. It would extend tax relief for new investments in machinery and equipment. I certainly heard in my round tables that this was important for Canadian manufacturing in particular, Canadian production more generally.

It would index gas tax fund payments to better support job creating infrastructure in municipalities. This is something municipalities had called upon governments to do for years. We are doing it in the bill.

Extending the mineral exploration tax credit is another example. I come from northern Ontario. This is critically important to the continued success of the economy in northern Ontario and other parts of our country.

Those are but a few examples of why the bill is important.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me explain the normal stages of a bill as it makes its way through the House and the committees. First, the bill, the subject matter of which is often rather complicated, passes at second reading and is studied intensively during four or five meetings in committee. Then, it comes back to the House to be debated. All that for just one bill.

However, in the case of the budget implementation bill, Bill C-60, which amends, adds or eliminates about 50 laws, only two and a half meetings of the Standing Committee on Finance, of which I am a member, were devoted to the provisions of Bill C-60.

I would remind hon. members that this bill includes two rather complex parts on taxation and a third part on various amendments to a number of statutes. Indeed, 18 different parts might have needed 18 separate bills.

We were given just one day of debate at second reading and two and a half meetings at the Standing Committee on Finance. Some very superficial meetings were held at other committees, but there was never any real study in committee. The committee on investment held just one meeting with officials and that is all. We did not even get to propose amendments in the Standing Committee on Finance.

How can the President of the Treasury Board claim that we have had ample time to debate Bill C-60, when we really only took an extremely superficial look at it?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about the process. As I have already said, content is also important.

More than six House committees had the opportunity to consider the different aspects of the bill. For example, the Standing Committee on Finance met more than five times to study this bill. The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development and other committees of the House also met to study this bill. Therefore, there has been a great deal of discussion and debate.

Naturally, when it comes to the process, discussions and debate are necessary and important. However, at the end of the day, it is important to have discussion here, in the House, in order to arrive at a conclusion.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, since there has been a Conservative majority government, we have seen a radically different attitude in terms of dealing with government business. Time allocation is now at a record high. Every time it introduces time allocation, it becomes a new record.

The majority Conservative government sees one way of passing legislation. It does not understand or appreciate the need to have democracy inside the House of Commons. Its attitude is that it is going to be the government's way and it is going to force it through, no matter what the opposition members have to say.

The President of the Treasury Board makes a joke of the committee structure when he says that the bill has gone to six committees. I was at one of those committees. The Liberal Party was given 10 minutes to address it at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. This whole process is a joke in the way the majority Conservative government tries to manage its legislative agenda through the House of Commons.

When will the government realize that time allocation is being used a record number of times? No other government in the history of Canada has used time allocation in the manner the government has used it. When are we going to see a change in attitude that demonstrates more respect for the way the House proceeds and more respect for individual members of the House of Commons? When are we going to see a change in attitude by the government?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I think I have outlined already this afternoon that our government approached this bill in a way that gave it further consideration by six separate committees of the House of Commons on various aspects of this bill. That shows that we are interested in getting feedback and in making sure that parliamentarians have an opportunity to have their say and input. That should be applauded, not held in derision, as the hon. member has done.

I find it passing strange that the hon. member, representing the party he does, says that. As I mentioned, in 2001, just to pick one example, the budget the previous Liberal government produced was longer than this budget and had 40% less debate in the House of Commons. It had bigger budgets than this one, with less debate. That was its record. For the hon. member to stand in this place and criticize us when we have gone out of our way to make sure that we have plowed new ground when it comes to discussion and debate on this particular budget does not have very much credibility.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the President of the Treasury Board is answering our questions about the debate. One part of the bill deals with his authority to intervene in the negotiations of crown corporations. Given how easily the President of the Treasury Board confuses his own personal interest with the public interest, this hardly alleviates all our concerns.

I will reiterate what my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques said. The consultations and the work done by the members of the Standing Committee on Finance—the only committee with the authority to really examine the bill—were just a facade, especially since most of the witnesses were clearly opposed to parts of the bill. Amendments were systematically rejected by the government. Everything was obviously decided beforehand. The government wants the bill to be passed in its present form. The NDP even proposed amendments that were not threatening in the least.

How can the President of the Treasury Board justify the fact that he is completely unreceptive to any suggestions?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there was a process to consider the amendments and the views of organizations such as trade unions and small businesses, for example. This process took place in committee, of course. That is precisely the place where these issues should be discussed. However, as I have previously said about crown corporations, the changes are intended to protect taxpayers, the public. We want a system that will enable crown corporations and unions to hold discussions. This is necessary to protect taxpayers' interests.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the minister for his answers. However, as I sit on the finance committee, it is hypocritical of the other parties to come here and present things that really are not factual. In committee, we heard from a number of witnesses, and the majority supported the measures in Bill C-60.

I also want to reply to some of the comments made by the NDP on how many pieces of legislation are in the bill. This is typical, and I would ask the minister to comment on how typical it is. The minister commented on the Liberals having a longer bill in 2001.

It is hypocritical when the NDP government in Manitoba recently, on May 31, was criticized for its omnibus budget bill, which actually introduces a controversial new subsidy for political parties. As members know, we are eliminating political subsidies. We think it is important that donations come to parties from taxpayers. However, the NDP government in Manitoba is going to provide new political aid through taxpayer funds in its omnibus budget bill. It is also going to reduce penalties for cabinet ministers in that omnibus bill. I do not agree with that. Let us hear from the minister about how typical it is to effect change with a number of legislations. What we will not do is hide things, as we see in Manitoba, in our omnibus bills.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to get into the details, as the hon. member has, of Manitoba politics. I think she is the resident expert, and I will let her comments stand. However, I think the point she was making is valid.

We are talking about a budget bill here. Budget bills, by their very nature, indeed by their very definition, are going to change various aspects of various bills down the line. They are going to change the Income Tax Act. They are going to change, in this case, acts respecting crown corporations. They are going to change things that have to do with citizenship and immigration. In this case, we are giving more funds to veterans, so there are changes that have to do with Veterans Affairs.

It is perfectly natural and normal that a bill that pertains to the economy and the budgeting of the government will affect various other pieces of legislation down the line. That is typical. This is not atypical in any manner of speaking in that regard. This bill is important to the future of our economy to make sure we continue to find ways to produce more jobs, more opportunity, more economic growth and more economic certainty.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying how quickly they forget. There are a lot of members in the Conservative Party who came from a Reform Party background, when the slogan was “The west wants in”.

I have to say, as a western MP, that on a lot of these debates, I would like to get in. I would like to have my say in these debates. However, once again, on the bill before us, my opportunity to speak will be this one and half minutes to ask the minister questions.

What we see from the other side at this time is setting a very low bar. We have had a Conservative government for seven years, but it continues to refer back to what the Liberals did, which is becoming a bit of ancient history. In fact, Conservatives have their own record here, which is the repeated use in Parliament of time allocation.

We are talking about 49 bills being amended here. However, the minister is saying that we had 10 hours of debate in committee. I hesitate to do the math out loud and on the record, but it would seem that it would amount to about five bills per hour, or a bill every 12 minutes. With three parties, that would be about four minutes each. How can the minister say that we have had adequate consultation and discussion on these bills with that kind of record?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not here to tell the opposition how to conduct its affairs. I would just say that in my experience as a parliamentarian, which goes back to 1995, quality matters as much as quantity, in a lot of cases. The hon. member might want to talk to his research department or the various staffers who work for the NDP and work on that as we move forward in this parliamentary session.

The case was made. Various organizations from western Canada, central Canada and eastern Canada came forward saying that this bill is necessary. Probably municipalities in the hon. member's own constituency came before us and said that they need this bill to be passed and that it is important for their municipalities to attract new growth, jobs and opportunities by having the infrastructure in place. Business organizations, mostly small and medium enterprises, probably in the honourable member's own constituency, came before us and said that they need this bill passed.

The hon. member is incorrect when he says that we did not have that kind of say, that kind of debate and that kind of discussion. The jury is back in, and it is saying that this bill is necessary. That is what these groups and organizations representing millions of Canadians are saying.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #709