Debates of June 7th, 2013

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

I would like to draw his attention to a specific item in the bill, namely co-operatives. We know that the government has decided to treat co-operatives like the big banks, despite their very different structure.

Can he say a few words about this aspect of the budget?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with what my colleague said.

I am not going to say much because I think my colleague is going to elaborate on this issue in a few minutes.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague ran out of time, and toward the end he mentioned that this training credit is not going to be available. We are seeing a whole bunch of money that is being spent by the present government on these economic action plan ads that say the new training credit is now available subject to parliamentary approval. If the bill does pass in the next couple of days or so, will Canadians have those training credits available to them? Could he comment on that?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are two barriers to this program. One barrier is passing it through Parliament, and I am sure it will. The second is whether they will be able to get agreements with the provinces and whether it will ever happen. Even if the law passes, there is no guarantee that the provinces would agree. Therefore, it still may never happen, even when it is the law. That is why I think it is totally inappropriate to advertise a program that may never come to pass.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this time I will try to get a lengthier response from the hon. member. I want to talk about organizations, including the CBC.

The Conservative government is going to interfere in the CBC's negotiations when most of the CBC's budget is allocated by the government.

Does he agree that this is unnecessary interference?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it appears that the member has chosen the second subject my colleague will be addressing.

I will be brief. I fully agree that it is inappropriate. In the past, crown corporations like VIA Rail and the CBC have had some independence from the government, and the fact that the government plans to send a Treasury Board official to these negotiations, to my mind, qualifies as interference.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Markham—Unionville for sharing his time with me. I also wish to inform the member for Louis-Hébert that the two subjects I plan to discuss have to do with credit unions and crown corporations. I will begin with credit unions.

The matter of credit unions is rather troubling, in the sense that we have a very adequate system. Credit unions have been able to offer services in communities where sometimes the banks do not go because the profit margins are not sufficient for the banks in small towns throughout this country, yet they are going to be suffering a rather dramatic setback because of the implementation of Bill C-60. When I asked why the government had chosen to do this, the Minister of Finance and others suggested that it is because the credit unions are now sufficiently large enough to compete and that the banks have to be protected. Though they did not quite say this, it was almost insinuated in their responses.

I need to provide some information about the relative comparison of the banks versus credit unions. The top five banks in this country, in 2012 numbers, have dramatically different sized assets than credit unions. The Royal Bank, in 2012, had $455 billion of assets under management; TD had $429 billion; Scotiabank had $347 billion; CIBC had $327 billion; and BMO had $278 billion. The largest credit union, Vancity, had $17 billion. I keep going back to the smallest one, which is First West, also in B.C., which had $5.9 billion. The other three are Coast Capital, at $12.6 billion; Servus, in Alberta, at $12.2 billion; and, finally, Meridian, in Ontario, at $8.8 billion. These numbers have been provided to all parliamentarians. If they have not, I would be quite prepared to share them. This has come from the Credit Union Central of Canada and these are publicly available numbers.

The largest credit union, Vancity, is 16 times smaller than the fifth largest bank, BMO. To say that we have to change the rules to allow for competition is ludicrous. The corporate structure of the two institutions is totally different. Because of the co-operative structure of credit unions, they cannot issue share capital. Basically, they have to accumulate capital through retained earnings; whereas the banks can issue share capital, as they do on a fairly regular basis. Forty years ago governments accepted that to enable the credit unions to function properly and build up capital, they would be treated as small businesses, and the tax rate of small businesses would apply to them.

I found it rather ironic during question period that one of my colleagues asked the Minister of Health a question about a bill that was introduced yesterday and the need for voices of communities to be heard. The government introduced this change in taxation of credit unions without any consultation whatsoever. Last summer there were five days of hearings that were held by a specially constituted committee of the House. They were unanimously agreed to, as per a motion that I put forward. The committee heard from the government, credit unions and the banks, and nobody at any time suggested that should be done or hinted that it might be happening. So much for consultation. Only when it suits the government, it seems, will it consult.

To do what the government has done, not consulting and then proposing that it is to allow for a level playing field, is absolutely not accurate. The consequence of this is that $200 million, which is basically the increased taxation that will be applied to credit unions over the next five years, will be that much less for small businesses in these communities and community economic development. This totally goes against the grain of what the government is trying to say in its budget. It says it welcomes competition, especially in the banking and financial sectors, and by introducing this measure it has actually reduced the competition and the ability of small institutions, the largest being 16 times smaller than the smallest of the big five, to compete.

Liberals do not understand what has driven the government to do this and whether it might be the banks saying that they do not need competition whatsoever. If that is the case, Canadian consumers, especially rural Canadians, will actually be negatively affected by this measure. That is certainly why I intend to vote against this measure, and I suspect most people on this side will vote against it as well.

The second issue has to do with crown corporations and section 17 of Bill C-60. Basically, the government is granting itself the power to interfere in crown corporations. It is absolutely incredible that this government wants to do such a thing. I think this shows utter contempt for the usual governance practices.

All crown corporations have an executive and a board of directors and that is usually appointed by the government. Perhaps one or two members may already be in place before the government makes it appointments, but that is how the government delegates it authority to manage crown corporations.

I would like to read some parts of the bill currently before the House, a bill that amends the Financial Administration Act. The first excerpt concerns the amendment cited in subsection 89.8(2):

If the Governor in Council directs a crown corporation to have its negotiating mandate approved, the Treasury Board may impose any requirement on the crown corporation with respect to that negotiating mandate.

The bill then goes even further on another matter. It gives the government the right to attend the negotiations. We are talking about collective bargaining and therefore unionized workers. However, there is also subsection 89.9(1), which states:

The Governor in Council [cabinet] may, by order, direct a Crown corporation to obtain the Treasury Board’s approval before the Crown corporation fixes the terms and conditions of employment of its non-unionized employees who are not appointed by the Governor in Council.

Thus, the government decided that it wanted to give itself the authority to bypass the boards of directors that it appoints, and to directly interfere in and infiltrate crown corporations. To start out with, that is already too much. It is totally inappropriate for any crown corporation.

More than anything else, what really crosses the line in a democratic society is the fact that the government wants to give itself the right to interfere in CBC/Radio-Canada. The Canadian public should really wake up, because we are dealing here with a measure that undermines the democratic capacity of a society.

I will also read section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Section 2 sets out fundamental freedoms, which include:

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

This government wants to give itself the right to interfere in CBC/Radio-Canada, which is a public news and broadcasting corporation. I hope that this bill and this division will be challenged in court, if the bill is passed, as we expect it will be. It has a majority in both chambers.

If the bill passes, we will have taken more than just a small step down a slippery slope. We will be undermining our democracy and our freedom of the press, and allowing the government to give itself the right to interfere in a crown corporation that has the responsibility to communicate with Canadians. This is unprecedented, and I hope that this will never happen again.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before we go to questions and comments, the hon. government House leader.

Bill S-17—Notice of time allocation motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill S-17, An act to implement conventions, protocols, agreements and a supplementary convention, concluded between Canada and Namibia, Serbia, Poland, Hong Kong, Luxembourg and Switzerland, for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of the proceedings at the said stage.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, although the Conservative government promised not to raise taxes, its 2013 budget contains several hidden tax hikes that will cost taxpayers dearly. The increased cost of parking at the Saint-Eustache hospital, which will rise to $7 per day, is a concrete example of this new policy. The Conservatives are putting a tax on illness by targeting the families who use the hospital. While the Conservatives' patronage gravy train is going full speed, they are penalizing Canadian families.

Would my Liberal colleague comment on that?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to do so.

Indeed, this is happening as well in the riding I have the honour to represent. There is a hospital in my riding, Montfort Hospital, that made headlines quite recently. A provincial Conservative government in Ontario tried to close it, but the community rose up and fought back. Those people not only saved the hospital, but also made it twice as large and improved it. However, anyone who uses this hospital will have to pay another hidden tax.

Ultimately, this is not where the real problem lies. I understand that government must have sources of income, but the problem with the Conservatives is their lack of transparency and honesty towards Canadians. They even lost one of their own this week, a member who decided to leave because of their lack of transparency.

When a government is committed to being honest, it must tell taxpayers that it needs to raise government revenues and explain how it will go about it. We understand that not too many people want to pay more taxes, but the government must be honest and admit to what it is doing with its budget.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

When he spoke about credit unions, he spoke mainly about their size, which corresponds to their value and their revenues.

However, there is another factor that is also important. It applies particularly to caisses populaires, among others. According to the model, the transactions are carried out only by the caisses populaires and not the federations. That means that the taxes will not necessarily apply to the federation, but to the small caisses populaires. The latter will have to do all the additional paperwork.

What does my colleague think of that situation?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Louis-Hébert is absolutely right.

I did talk primarily about credit unions, but what I said applies to caisses populaires as well. I am not talking about Desjardins Group; I am talking about caisses populaires. I belong to one of them, a small one that will have to pay more taxes. Nobody consulted my caisse. In fact, it found out about this on the news because the government is not interested in consulting people when it knows they will not say what it wants to hear.

My caisse is in a big city, but I know that there are a lot of small towns in northern and eastern Ontario, across Quebec and throughout regions that are far from major centres where the only financial institution is a caisse. I would not be surprised if some of them have to close their doors because of this tax hike. Small Canadian communities are in danger of losing access to local financial services because the government did not talk to anyone about its decision to hypocritically—yes, hypocritically—cover up the fact that it is just trying to boost its revenues.

The government is justifying the fact that it did not have the decency to consult people by saying that it is trying to level the playing field between banks and caisses populaires. That is hogwash. I looked at the numbers. Caisses and credit unions are not even on the same playing field. Unlike banks, they do not have the ability to issue share capital. They have to accumulate capital through retained earnings. If the government taxes those earnings, caisses populaires and credit unions will no longer be able to help communities as they do now, or at least, they will be less able to do so.

Let us hope they can survive this. If they succeed, it will certainly not be because the government did anything to help the co-operative movement. It will be because communities rallied behind their co-operative financial institutions—their caisses populaires and their credit unions.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary for international co-operation.

I will advise the hon. parliamentary secretary that she will have just six or seven minutes.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today on behalf of the wonderful residents of Newmarket—Aurora to speak on economic action plan 2013.

This is an excellent plan that supports my constituents by its focus on the issues that are important to them.

Each spring, I have an MP booth at three very popular community events in my riding: the Newmarket Home Show and the Aurora Home Show, which take place in April, and the Aurora street festival, which is held the first weekend in June. These events combined attract over 30,000 people, so I have the opportunity to speak with an incredible number of residents and businesses from all walks of life on the issues of the day.

I can report to the House today that from the thousands of discussions, the most top-of-mind issues for my constituents are jobs, the economy and taxes. These are exactly the issues that economic action plan 2013 addresses. People in my riding cannot wait for the measures it contains to be passed and worked through the system so that they can start to benefit.

Let me mention just a few of these initiatives. One would extend for two years the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for new investments in machinery and equipment by Canadian manufacturers. I am very pleased to see this initiative continue for Newmarket and Aurora businesses to help them grow and create jobs.

Another is indexing gas tax fund payments to better support job-creating infrastructure in municipalities across Canada, which builds on our government's previous work to assist municipalities with their infrastructure requirements. Under the leadership of the Prime Minister, we doubled this fund and made it permanent. The municipalities of Newmarket and Aurora rely heavily on this stable, predictable source of funding to help ease the burden imposed by municipal infrastructure renewal on local taxpayers.

Another initiative is the reform of the temporary working program to ensure that Canadians are given the first crack at available jobs. Economic action plan 2013 announced the need for remedial action in this program and would put steps in place to crack down on the abuses of this program.

As another example, our government is proposing to extend for one year the mineral exploration tax credit for flow-through share investors. Another example is promoting adoption by enhancing the adoption expense tax credit to better recognize the cost of adopting a child. Adoption is a time-consuming and often costly process, and this new measure will be very meaningful to Canadian families who opt to take this path.

We also want to introduce a new temporary first-time donor super credit for first-time claimants of the charitable donations tax credit. As well, we propose to extend tax relief for home care services to better meet the health care needs of Canadians and to remove tariffs on imports of baby clothing and certain sports and athletic equipment.

Residents in Newmarket and Aurora have confidence that our government is on the right track for them. Why? It is because we have delivered on our promises for the past seven years. We have created jobs and grown the economy. Employment in York region grew by 2.3% in 2012 from the year before. Aurora alone grew by 8.7%. I am particularly pleased to see Aurora's manufacturing and construction sector rebound with a 4% expansion last year alone.

Statistics Canada recently released its latest economic update. The Canadian economy grew an outstanding 2.5% in the first quarter of 2013. This is the strongest quarterly growth Canada has seen in nearly two years.

Today we learned that 95,500 net new jobs were created in May, the overwhelming majority of them full time and private sector employment. We also learned that youth employment increased by 54,400 jobs, the biggest monthly job gain for young Canadians in nearly three decades.

In addition to the timely and targeted measures we have enacted and will enact, we are on track to balance the budget. We are increasing federal transfer support to record highs and keeping federal taxes at their lowest level in 50 years.

I would like to elaborate on our support for municipalities. Many community leaders and organizations in Newmarket—Aurora have been calling on the upper levels of government to provide predictable funding for infrastructure. The Newmarket Chamber of Commerce, the Aurora Chamber of Commerce and town councils for Newmarket and Aurora are among them.

I am very pleased to tell them that our government has listened and acted. Economic action plan 2013 includes the highest infrastructure commitment in the history of Canada through the historic building Canada plan, worth an enormous $70 billion in federal dollars for Canadian infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you have given me the sign that my time if almost up and I have much more that I would love to tell the good people in Newmarket—Aurora from this chamber. What I can tell them is our government is focused on creating jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for people across the country. We have reduced taxes over 150 times since we took government. That has put more than $3,000 extra in the pockets of families in our communities. They are the ones out there working every day, trying to put food on the table for their kids and give them opportunities. We want to continue that, to ensure that Canadians from coast to coast to coast have the opportunity to succeed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to order made Monday, June 3, 2013, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been around this place a long time, but I am not clear on this fact. I would have thought the mover of the amendment is required to be here in the House at this time. I await your advice on that.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is not necessary for the mover to be in the House at this time of the motion.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not sure of the procedure here either, but do members not have to be in their own seats in order to cast their vote, even on a voice vote?

[The Deputy Speaker]

No, they do not have to be in their seats at this stage. This is not a vote.

Let us try again.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.