House of Commons Hansard #265 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was seniors.

Topics

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Oak Ridges—Markham Ontario

Conservative

Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 1318 and 1320 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Question No. 1318Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

NDP

Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

With regard to projects funded through the Global Peace and Security Fund, for each fiscal year from 2006-2007 to 2012-2013, how many projects were funded, broken down by (i) recipient of project, (ii) description of project, (iii) location of project, (iv) length of project, (v) value of project, (vi) sub-program and thematic area of project, (vii) type of funding?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1320Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON

With regard to ongoing investigation into habitat conservation in Canada, and particularly the proposed National Conservation Plan: (a) what research, including all studies, findings and recommendations, and investment has the government undertaken to assess the full potential of the Species at Risk Act (SARA), in its current form, to contribute to national habitat conservation objectives; and (b) what research, including all studies, findings and recommendations, has the government undertaken to assess what will be required to ensure that the full potential of SARA to contribute to national habitat conservation objectives is realized?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON

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

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Newmarket—Aurora Ontario

Conservative

Lois Brown ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation

Mr. Speaker, during question period, I was asked a question about the global fund and I responded about the contributions that Canada has made.

Erroneously, I made the statement that the Minister of International Cooperation had given an extra $20 million just last week. Indeed, the money was contributed, but it was May 13 when it was contributed.

We have been sitting for so many hours that it felt like last week.

Elections CanadaPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to respond to Wednesday's question of privilege from the hon. member for Avalon.

The hon. member argues that subsection 463(2) of the Canada Elections Act should apply to me as a consequence of a request made under subsection 457(2) of the act.

As the government House leader said Wednesday, this issue is effectively a question of accounting interpretation. Some reports have erroneously speculated that the contentious issue between my 2011 campaign and Elections Canada is in relation to transfers between the Selkirk—Interlake Conservative Electoral District Association and my campaign. I can tell the House that this is not accurate.

Elections Canada is in receipt of all documentation relating to these transfers. These transfers include election costs incurred by our campaign but paid for by the association and reimbursed by the campaign. These costs include sign inventory, telephone bills and installation, office rent, new signs, a website and office equipment.

My campaign has complied with the Canada Elections Act. My campaign has been straightforward with Elections Canada and has worked in good faith. All of my documents have been filed in a timely manner, and appropriate amendments were made in accordance with the rules laid out by the act.

This is an accounting dispute between the campaign and Elections Canada regarding the value of certain used highway signs that were originally installed several years ago.

Elections Canada approved my campaign returns for the 2006 and 2000 elections but has now changed its interpretation and is contradicting its own ruling, which is not consistent with the act's provisions.

The Canada Elections Act provides me with the legal ability to challenge Elections Canada. I will be exercising my right to be heard by a court of law. My campaign will be challenging Elections Canada's new interpretation and looks forward to having our return properly adjudicated in a court of law.

As such, I have brought an application to Manitoba's Court of Queen's Bench under section 459 of the act. That application was filed on May 23, 2013 in Selkirk, Manitoba. I look forward to receiving a judicial ruling on my campaign return, which will ultimately provide direction to Elections Canada and my campaign to resolve our impasse.

Paragraph 459(1)(a) of the act provides that a judge may make an order “relieving the candidate or official agent from complying with a request referred to in subsection 457(2)”.

Should the court grant my application under section 459, it dispenses with the requirement of section 457(2). In other words, it would be as if there never was any condition precedent triggering subsection 463(2) of the act.

It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that you have adopted, in my view, the clearly correct position that the bringing of proceedings under section 459 acts as a stay on subsection 463(2).

Page 307 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, describes the Speaker's role:

...to act as the guardian of the rights and privileges of Members and of the House as an institution.

I believe that your position on section 459 upholds the rights of members under the Canada Elections Act and as members of the House. In any event, Mr. Speaker, you would not be alone in that interpretation of the effect of section 459.

In the Chief Electoral Officer's May 23 letter to you, a document that is circulating in the public domain through the media, Marc Mayrand appears to agree that an application under section 459 has that material impact, namely that subsection 463(2) is put into abeyance pending the resolution of a court challenge.

In the fifth and sixth paragraphs of his letter, Mr. Mayrand says:

A person who has received a request under subsection 457(2) may make an application to court seeking relief from the requirement to make the correction. However, to my knowledge, no application has been made in this case.

In the event that the corrected returns or an application to a court is subsequently filed, I will advise you accordingly.

Later, on May 27, Stéphane Perrault, the Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, wrote to you. My counsel was copied on the letter, so I have a copy. I am hesitant to quote from private correspondence, but I think it is important in making my case.

In the last paragraph of the first page, Mr. Perrault said of the letter from May 23 I quoted earlier:

The purpose of the letter was to provide to you, as Speaker of the House of Commons, the information that would assist you in taking whatever action or position you believe to be appropriate in the circumstances. This includes whether it would be appropriate for [me] to continue to sit pending the outcome of an application under s. 459, should one be filed (to date, we have not received notice of such an application).

When I say “me”, I mean me as the member for Selkirk—Interlake.

As I said earlier, my application was filed on May 23. Mr. Speaker, the filing of my application was finally confirmed to you by the Chief Electoral Officer in his letter to you dated May 30.

My application is now before the courts. Therefore, I would respectfully submit that the sub judice convention should be respected.

Citation 505 of Beauchesne's parliamentary Rules & Forms for the House of Commons of Canada, sixth edition, advises that:

The purpose of this sub judice convention is to protect the parties in a case awaiting or undergoing trial and persons who stand to be affected by the outcome of a judicial inquiry. It is a voluntary restraint imposed by the House upon itself in the interest of justice and fair play.

O'Brien and Bosc, at page 100, comment on the sub judice convention in the context of questions of privilege:

The sub judice convention is important in the conduct of business in the House. It protects the rights of interested parties before the courts, and preserves and maintains the separation and mutual respect between the legislature and the judiciary.

Meanwhile, Erskine May, 24th edition, at page 441, succinctly lays out the following proposition:

Subject to the discretion of the Chair and to the right of the House to legislate on any matter or to discuss any matters of delegated legislation, matters awaiting the adjudication of a court of law should not be brought forward in debate.

Mr. Speaker, your own ruling on March 27, 2013, at pages 15292 and 15293 of the Debates, described a very clear parallel to my circumstances today. You said:

As Speaker, I must endeavour to find a balance between the right of the House to debate a matter and the effect that this debate might have. This is particularly important given that the purpose of the sub judice convention is to ensure that judicial decisions can be made free of undue influence.

Later in your ruling, sir, you concluded the following:

...the fact remains that the heart of this question of privilege is still before the courts, which have yet to make a finding. I believe that it would be prudent for the House to use caution in taking steps that could result in an investigatory process that would, in many ways, run parallel to the court proceedings, particularly given that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada is already a party to the court proceedings and would be a central figure in any consideration the House might give this matter.

Like the hon. Attorney General in the case from three months ago, I am clearly a party to these court proceedings, and I have a very clear interest in their outcome, an interest that is of proportionally greater personal significance to me than the Attorney General's in that case.

In this instance, though, any finding of a prima facie case of privilege would not only amount to a parallel proceeding but would also interfere with the outcome of my court application. A decision by this House would clearly prejudice my interest in court, which prompts me to reference the sub judice convention.

The torqued rhetoric from some members in this chamber and outside crosses the line on two fronts. I think it violates my privileges as a duly elected member of Parliament for Selkirk—Interlake, and it jeopardizes my right, guaranteed under the Constitution, to a fair court process.

The opposition parties always say they respect the law and stand up for the Constitution, and they cry foul whenever they think their parliamentary privileges have been violated. However, they never think, not for a minute, about throwing all of that out the window for partisan purposes when they try to deny me my basic rights and compromise my due process in court.

Let me be very clear. I have not broken any law. I believe that I am in compliance with the Canada Elections Act.

My election as a member of Parliament was confirmed by the returning officer and the Chief Electoral Officer. The return of the writ is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the accounting method that should be applied to used highway signs, and that matter is before the court. This dispute does not change the fact that I have been returned as the member of Parliament for Selkirk—Interlake.

In conclusion, I would respectfully submit that the chair can dispose of this issue on the grounds of the role section 459 of the Canada Elections Act plays, an interpretation apparently shared by the Chief Electoral Officer, an officer of Parliament, and his deputy, and also under the sub judice convention.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would urge you to reject the baseless and cynical question of privilege claimed by the hon. member for Avalon.

Elections CanadaPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

12:25 p.m.

Saint Boniface Manitoba

Conservative

Shelly Glover ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, I also rise to respond to the question of privilege by the hon. member for Avalon.

Having heard the arguments of the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake, I will simply set out the relevant facts of my own circumstances. I agree with the procedural arguments advanced by my hon. friend. They would also apply to my own circumstances, so I would associate myself with them.

All available information has been provided to Elections Canada by me and by my campaign. Ultimately, the issue in dispute is simply a disagreement between my campaign and Elections Canada as to interpretations applicable to certain expenditures.

In the interest of maintaining my legal position, I too brought an application in the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba under section 459 of the Canada Elections Act. My application was filed on May 24, 2013.

For the same reasons argued by the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake, it is my view that bringing proceedings under section 459 of the act puts subsection 463(2) into abeyance, pending the court's disposition of my application.

Mr. Speaker, the Chief Electoral Officer sent you a notice similar to that which he provided you respecting my caucus colleague. The filing of my May 24 application was confirmed by the Chief Electoral Officer in a May 30 letter addressed to you.

Like the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake, I believe that I am in compliance with the Canada Elections Act. I did not break the law. For the House to be called upon to debate and decide upon a motion in this matter, which is what the hon. member for Avalon is seeking through his question of privilege, would undoubtedly prejudice my interest in the currently pending court proceedings.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that clear grounds to dismiss this question of privilege are before you. First, the impact of section 459 of the Canada Elections Act is very clear, and this is, as we just heard, an interpretation that is apparently shared by the Chief Electoral Officer. Second, the sub judice convention is an equally compelling reason to reach such a decision.

Therefore, I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to reject the question of privilege put forth by the hon. member for Avalon, and I thank you very much for hearing my argument.

Elections CanadaPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, when we first raised this issue in the House, the government House leader said that the suspension was too harsh in this case. However, he forgets that the said suspension was what the House of Commons wanted when it passed the provision of the Elections Canada Act. It is Parliament that passed the act, not Elections Canada.

Suspension is designed to pressure the MP in question into obeying the order of the Chief Electoral Officer, who has no other way of making a candidate provide the information required by the act.

Suspension is not a sentence to be appealed to a higher court, as the government House leader has suggested. It is a way of saying that member is suspended until he or she provides the corrected information ordered.

The two MPs should have gone to court earlier to settle their disagreement with Elections Canada.

Further, it seems we are currently treating this matter as if the MPs have been charged with an offence and the Chair has to wait until their appeals are exhausted before dealing with them in the House. They have not been charged with any offence. They are being pushed to provide the correct documentation as demanded by law and should suffer the appropriate consequences as outlined in the law that was passed by Parliament.

Also, I would argue that these members have been sitting and voting in the House for several days now without the right. Indeed, they should have been prevented from doing so the moment the House received notification from Elections Canada of their infractions. This then requires for not only their immediate suspension, but that their names should be struck from the record of all votes in the House since the time of notification. That includes 47 votes so far.

I would refer you, Mr. Speaker, to Bourinot, fourth edition, page 390, which states:

If it should be decided that a member has no right to sit or vote in the House, the votes he may have given during that period of his disqualification will be struck off the journals.

The argument put forward by the government House leader for avoiding immediate suspension is that the members have appealed to the Federal Court. I would like to respond to that specific argument.

The decision of Speaker Lamoureux in 1966 dealt specifically with this issue. He quickly put this argument to rest, referencing page 60 of the May 17th edition, stating that one of the privileges of parliament is for “each House to be the sole judge of the lawfulness” or the legality, “of its own proceedings” and “This holds even where the procedure of a House or the right of its members or officers to take part in its proceedings dependent on statute”.

Speaker Lamoureaux went on to reference a ruling by Justice Stephen in the Bradlaugh case, which defined the relation between the jurisdiction of the courts and that of the House of Commons. Justice Stephen's ruling stated:

I think that the House of Commons is not subject to the control of Her Majesty's Court in its administration of that part of the statute-law which has relation to its own internal proceedings....It seems to follow that the House of Commons has the exclusive power of interpreting the statute, so far as the regulation of its own proceedings within its own walls is concerned...

It continues:

—for the purpose of determining on the right to be exercised within the House itself, and in particular the right of sitting and voting, the House and the House only could interpret the statute...

With this, I look forward to your ruling. It is further requested that, if it is possible, to ask for a copy of the letters that were referenced in the previous statements from members.

Elections CanadaPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

12:30 p.m.

NDP

Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, the NDP would like to have another day on this and to present on Monday. I think it is very important to recognize that there is some legal complexity here, that the automatic operation of section 463(2) is not as straightforward as is being made out and that we do have to look back at what happened with the Elections Act in 1966, section 63 of the act then, and ensure there is the same parallel that is being asserted. We just have not had the time to do that adequately.

Elections CanadaPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

12:35 p.m.

York—Simcoe Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I wish to respond very briefly to the intervention by the member for Winnipeg North. The fact is that there is a very simple path set out by the Elections Canada folks on how this matter can be dealt with. One option is for the members in question to submit returns that comply with the Elections Canada interpretation. The other option is to file an application with the courts. Failing either of those actions, the third subsequent event would be suspension from the House.

We have heard from both members in question that such an application has been filed. This is one of the two alternatives that would be sufficient to stay the suspension mechanism in the act. As such, it is a very simple question. It is obvious that having satisfied one of those two conditions, that of making an application to get the proper interpretation, the suspension should not be in effect.

To rule otherwise would be to say that members in circumstances such as theirs really only have one option, and that is to accept the interpretation of Elections Canada, that they would be barred from resolving it through an application to the courts. That would be seen by all of us as a failure of natural justice and an inordinate power upon Election Canada which was never intended by the act and never intended by any of us and certainly should not be created through your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Therefore, the question is a very simple one. The condition has been satisfied and, as a result, the suspension should not take effect.

Elections CanadaPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I thank hon. members for their further contribution and I look forward to the intervention from the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth.

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. 1Government Orders

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier.

In my time, I would like to focus on two main items. The first is the contention we hear all the time from the government that Canada is doing relatively well. It is quite easy to be doing relatively well compared with the eurozone for example, which is in recession. However, I would acknowledge that relative to many countries, Canada is doing—

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1Government Orders

12:35 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

Since the member is in the first round of debate on the bill, splitting his time requires unanimous consent from the House. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to split his time?

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1Government Orders

12:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1Government Orders

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to start with a bit of a history lesson. To the extent that Canada is doing relatively well, it has nothing to do with the current government and everything to do with the previous Liberal governments. Members may laugh, but it happens to be true, and let me explain it.

One reason Canada is doing well is because our fiscal house is in order. A second reason Canada is doing well is because we did not deregulate our banks as the Americans and British did. The third reason we are doing relatively well is because of our strong resource set.

I do not think the members of the Conservative Party of Canada can say that they put all the oil and minerals in the ground. Neither can the Liberal Party, nor can the NDP. That is what we might call “an act of God”, so no political party can claim credit for that. However, the other items, putting the fiscal house in order and keeping strong regulation of banks, were both achieved by the Liberals in the 1990s.

Thinking back to 1993, we might remember that Canada had a deficit of $43 billion, which was inherited by the new Liberal government and there was a state of fiscal crisis in the air. There was the idea that Canada was becoming an honorary third world country and the IMF would have to come in and clean up the mess. That is why the Chrétien government, with Paul Martin as finance minister, acted swiftly to eliminate that deficit in a period of about two years and then proceeded to pay down debt for close to ten years.

Whereas at the beginning, in 1993, we were the basket case of the G7 fiscally speaking, by the time the Conservatives came to power, we had the strongest record of the G7 and it was thanks to those actions taken by the Liberal government.

The Conservatives like to criticize the Liberal government for cutting so much so quickly, but if they think back to that time, they will remember that the Reform Party of the day was telling the Liberals to cut more, not to cut less. That is point number one.

Point number two has to do with banking. Partly the reason why the Americans and the British got into so much trouble is that they went down the path of deregulating their banks, or allowing their banks to regulate themselves, whereas, in Canada we did not do that. As a consequence, our banks remained more conservatively managed. The other thing was that the federal government of the day said, no, to the proposed bank mergers. Even though I worked for Royal Bank at that time, I became convinced after the financial crisis that it was certainly the right decision. Otherwise, the banks would have become bigger and more international, more like the big American and British banks.

There are three reasons Canada is doing relatively well. First, we balanced the budget and reduced the debt-to-GDP ratio. Second, we refused to allow the banks to regulate themselves. Finally, we have a robust resource sector.

Therefore, when Conservatives say that Canada is doing relatively well, they should add this sentence: “Thanks to previous Liberal governments”. That would be my humble suggestion for the government, which I understand is likely to fall on deaf ears.

The next section of my comments is about the government's budgetary management, which I would contend has not been good, and there are several points on this.

First, the Conservatives are assuming that the growth rate next year will just jump right back up to 2.5% from its much lower level today. I cannot totally blame the government for this because admittedly those are private sector forecasts and private sector econometric models typically do project growth rates jumping back. However, this seems to be a recession unlike others, where I think we might get into trouble if we simply assume growth rates jump back and that helps to reduce the deficit. Therefore, that is a risk for the current government.

Second, the Conservatives have not done their prudence very well. I remember back in the 1990s, when I was at the Royal Bank, having a meeting with Paul Martin and other economists about how we should deal with this prudence. I remember suggesting a very scientific idea: prudence of $1 billion in year one; $2 billion in year two; $3 billion in year three; $4 billion in year four. I do not know if they did exactly that, but the idea is that the further out into the future we get, the more risky and the less certain things are, so they should have the amount of prudence in the budget going up over time into the future. The government just keeps it flat, so that displays a lack of fiscal prudence.

On catching tax cheaters, I think the Conservatives are making an overly optimistic assumption that they will get $500 million in taxes next year that should have been paid but were not, while at the same time cutting the staff and budget of CRA. I do not think that makes any sense whatsoever.

I think it is wrong for them to boast about their multiple-billion, 10-year infrastructure program when nothing significant will happen until several years out. It is very much back-end loaded. In fact, in the near term they have actually cut the amount that is devoted to infrastructure.

The final point I would make is that they simply lost $3.1 billion, the money that was to have been spent on anti-terrorism activities. The Auditor General says the information does not exist to find it. I do not understand that. I will be meeting with the Auditor General's office later today, and I hope to understand better how it is possible to lose track of $3.1 billion.

This is a government that prides itself on its fiscal management. How can one be proud of one's fiscal management if one loses track of $3.1 billion?

I would argue that this has been a government characterized by sloppy fiscal management, inadequate prudence, and other matters that do not add up to a prudent management of the budget.

The last point I would make is on this business about jobs without people and people without jobs. It is a really important issue. Attention should be directed to it. What the government has done is a total sham because it is not putting one more penny into it. Right now, the government transfers $2.5 billion per year to the provinces for training. It appears it is going to take that money back, or some of it, and then require the provinces and companies to put up more money.

How is that going to work? Often the provincial governments are in a worse deficit situation than the federal government. I know, for example, that the Government of Ontario is very concerned that the federal government will take away money that Ontario uses to train very disadvantaged people and then use it for other purposes. This would mean that the training for those disadvantaged people, who are probably not in the Conservative core, would simply disappear. The Ontario government's fiscal position is certainly less strong than that of the current government.

In closing, what I said is quite simple. First, when the government says that Canada has managed quite well, it should add “thanks to the actions of the previous Liberal government”. Second, the Conservatives have not done a good job of managing the budget.

Finally, there is actually no money in the program for training. The thing is a sham. It is not even clear if it will get off its feet. A number of provinces have already said that they have no interest in participating.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1Government Orders

12:45 p.m.

Newmarket—Aurora Ontario

Conservative

Lois Brown ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation

Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to look at history when we are looking at it in hindsight from the perspective of that member.

The employees do not say thank you to the previous Liberal government because that government stole $52 billion out of the EI fund to pay down the debt. It took $25 billion in transfer payments in health care and education from the provinces to pay down that debt, so it put it on the backs of the provinces.

However, the employees of today are saying thank you to our government, for jobs, for growth, for long-term prosperity. Today we heard that a net million new jobs have been created in this country since the worst of the downturn.

I wonder if that member would like to speak to how that has been generated in these last few years under this government.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1Government Orders

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should understand when she complains about us cutting transfers to the provinces, that we did, but we also cut federal government spending in a proportional way. She should remember that her colleagues in those days did not say “cut less”; they said to us “cut more”. The Reform Party of the day said Liberals were not cutting enough. That made it politically easier for us to do. However, she should not rewrite history. She should understand that her own colleagues of the day were telling us to cut more and not to cut less.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1Government Orders

12:45 p.m.

NDP

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?