Debates of Oct. 30th, 2014

Second reading

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what a great question because that is what the budget is all about. That is what we, as Canadians representing the government, should be focused on day in and day out.

As a businessperson, when I ran my business and was saddled with debt, it stopped me from being productive. It curtailed any creativity. It did not allow me to do the things that I would have liked to do with my business. Clearly, the same applies to the government from the perspective that the more debt, the more burden on Canadians, the less likely we are as a government to be able to be creative, create innovation and do all of the things that this budget so clearly outlines.

We committed to delivering a balanced budget and we are going to do just that this year. That is a commitment of the Conservative government, which is clearly getting the job done, creating jobs, creating growth and creating prosperity for future generations of Canadians.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl.

It is Halloween, and the monsters are back. This is a monster budget. I rise today to speak in this debate to oppose Bill C-43, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, as well as the undemocratic process being used by this government and the Prime Minister to amend 30 or so pieces of legislation.

As the member for LaSalle—Émard and the official opposition's critic for co-operatives, I would like to express my deep concern about this shocking process, which consists of forcing the approval of hundreds of changes without giving members of the House or the stakeholders involved time to study them.

I am especially concerned about the changes included in division 22 that will have an impact on credit unions. However, before I go into detail about division 22 of Bill C-43, I would like to remind members of the House, especially government members, of the important role our credit unions play in Canada.

Excluding Quebec, there are 317 credit unions in Canada with 1,740 branches and over 5 million members. They have assets worth over $165 billon and are present in every province of this country. The Mouvement Desjardins has 360 credit unions in Quebec with 6 million members and over $212 billion in total assets. It is the largest private sector employer in the province, supporting 40,000 direct jobs and 25,000 indirect jobs.

The numbers speak for themselves. Credit unions are a big part of our economy and financial landscape, and their contributions are extremely important. I can assure everyone that every member of the House has thousands of constituents who are members of a credit union and/or use their services.

Nonetheless, beyond the numbers, credit unions really matter to all our communities. They are in the municipalities or regions of Canada that the traditional banks have abandoned. They offer products and services that meet the needs of the people and they reinvest in their community.

What is more, credit unions are more resilient to economic uncertainties. With regard to the riding of LaSalle—Émard, I can attest to how the LaSalle caisse populaire contributes to the vitality of community organizations. It contributes a great deal to the vitality of our community organizations and our community.

Despite the major growth in credit unions and their significant financial performance, the Conservative government is introducing another bill that does not take into account their needs or the differences between them and the banks.

I have said before that the Conservative government is incapable of taking into account the unique characteristics of credit unions or recognizing the benefits of that uniqueness. The same goes for SMEs. When drafting bills, the government is incapable of taking into account the inherent differences between large companies and small and medium-sized businesses. The same goes for the co-operative movement.

This proves it. Division 22 of Bill C-43 seeks to makes changes to the regulations on credit unions. More specifically, it amends the Bank of Canada Act by eliminating the central bank's role as lender of last resort for credit unions, forcing them to rely on provincial guarantees in order to get a loan.

It also amends the Bank Act and the Cooperative Credit Associations Act in order to facilitate the entry of provincial cooperative credit societies into the federal credit union system and to discontinue supervision of provincial central cooperative credit societies by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.

Instead of addressing the reality and the needs of credit unions— especially their request for the creation of a new tax credit enabling them to access other sources of capitalization—these amendments seek to make our financial system homogeneous by trying to subject credit unions to the same conditions and rules that apply to major banks.

Do members acknowledge that we can have a multi-faceted economy and financial system? That is what the regions, credit unions and big cities are asking for. We have to recognize that credit unions meet community needs and that chartered banks and credit unions can co-exist.

The proposed measures are once again in keeping with the Conservatives' philosophy of opposing, for ideological reasons, the expansion of the Canadian cooperative movement. The 2013 budget measures unfairly increased taxes on credit unions. The proposals in this mammoth budget bill represent an effort by the government to subject credit unions to the same rules as banks.

In other words, and I have said this before, the Conservatives are not taking into account how credit unions are inherently different. In Canada, chartered banks have their way of operating and they are favoured by the government. Meanwhile, the government does not stop creating obstacles for credit unions thereby preventing them from growing and meeting the needs of regions and communities that are not served by large financial institutions.

I am wondering whether the government would dare demand that banks rely on the same type of guarantee from the province where their head office is located in order to access Bank of Canada loans. I am also wondering whether this government consulted the provinces before proposing the risk transfer resulting from the amendment and whether it assessed what impact this measure would have on their finances.

I am concerned that the government seems to want to encourage provincial credit unions to transition to the federal system without taking into account their unique characteristics and the challenges they would face in making such a transition.

Finally, we must remind the government of the importance of working with the credit unions to find solutions that will help them to grow. This government cannot continue to ignore the demands of a sector that plays such an important role in our economy.

This government did not even include in these 460 pages provisions that would help promote the capitalization of credit unions and give them the means to assist families and small and medium-sized businesses, namely through a capital growth tax credit.

The government did not consider modifying the legal framework, which would have allowed credit unions to compete with the big banks without losing their status as a co-operative and while maintaining their commitment to serving their members.

Once again, these 460 pages do not take into account credit unions, which contribute to a sustainable, democratic and 100% Canadian economy.

I bitterly regret it, but I must oppose this monstrous bill that does not in any way take into account the interests of Canadians, co-operatives or credit unions.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from LaSalle—Émard for her very good speech.

She spoke a lot about credit unions and co-operatives. Last week, the manager of the Caisse populaire de Verner, which is in my riding, visited my Ottawa office. He was very concerned about the government's plans to tie the hands of credit unions. Could my colleague tell us more about how the government is preventing credit unions from doing what credit unions do?

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nickel Belt for bringing this up, because he gave a perfect example of how credit unions help keep regions and communities—especially francophone communities across Canada—strong. He also shared the concerns of credit unions.

Credit unions and caisses populaires have unique structures, which is why they are so valuable. This is what makes our economy democratic. Under this government, they also have to face increasing amounts of regulation, and they comply, in order to keep up. These regulations put a considerable administrative burden on credit unions, and this government does not seem to care. As a result, they are not able to keep up with all of these regulations and the accompanying administrative burden.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear colleague for her excellent speech on this omnibus bill—or mammoth bill, as we say. I think that is what it is.

I have a question for the government about this policy and credit unions. They are very different from banks. A number of Conservative members think that credit unions and banks are exactly the same. The new changes are harmful to credit unions, which use a lot of their money to help small and medium-sized businesses in Canada to create the jobs we need.

My question very specifically is this. Conservative MPs in particular who have said, in committee and other places, that they do not see any difference between a chartered bank and a credit union expose a grave concern for me, because last year the government inadvertently—maybe by accident, we do not know—heaped millions of dollars of extra taxes on top of credit unions through one change. Now they are coming in with something else that will deny credit unions access to funds.

It should be noted that credit unions, much more so than chartered banks, move money to small and medium businesses, particularly in smaller communities, many of which have lost their chartered bank representatives entirely.

If an economy like Canada's right now has not created virtually any new jobs in the private sector industry, and small businesses create upwards of 80% of all jobs in Canada, why would the government not take the initiative to help out groups like the credit unions, which do great good for our communities and help move money, loans, guarantees, and what not to the small businesses, the true job creators in Canada?

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, our finance critic, for his comments and for his question.

I think he recognized, as I do and as should a lot of members on the Conservative side, how a simple capital growth tax credit would have a multiplier effect on the regional economy, on regional revitalization, which would have an effect of boosting small and medium-sized businesses, contributing to their growth and success, contributing in creating jobs, which we all want here.

Why not have something like a capital growth tax credit for credit unions, to make sure that these contributors, the credit unions, which are great contributors to our economy, can again do their job?

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to speak in the House since the events of last week. I am proud of how the House conducted itself in the wake of such terror, such atrocities, such shocking tragedy. It was good for Canada that we resumed sitting the very next morning, that we stood strong, that our leaders addressed Canadians, and that our leaders embraced. It was good for the nation to embrace.

It has been three years, and last week was the first time as a member of Parliament that I felt partisan lines dissolve, momentarily at least. I felt somewhat that way after Jack Layton died and after the passing of Jim Flaherty, but not to the degree I felt it here a week ago today. The House came together as one.

It is not every day that I stand up and applaud the Conservative Prime Minister. It is not every day that the Prime Minister stands up and applauds the leader of Her Majesty's opposition, the New Democratic Party of Canada, or the third party Liberals. It is not every day I personally compliment the Prime Minister. In fact, it never happened until last week.

The Prime Minister made a statement in the House last Thursday that I have since repeated a number of times because it struck a chord and I agreed with the statement. The Prime Minister said: “In our system, in our country, we are opponents, but we are never enemies”.

We are united in the House by the desire to better our country. As opponents, we disagree on how to get there, but we all strive for a better Canada, for this country to be the best country it can be. We are opponents, but we are never enemies. That is why it is so infuriating to see the government introduce, yet again, an absolutely massive anti-democratic omnibus bill. It is a bill that amounts to an affront to the principles and spirit that this precious institution was built on.

The Prime Minister said we are opponents but we are never enemies. I say we are Canadians but we are never fools. We are members of Parliament, but we are never puppets, at least we should never be puppets. We are elected to serve, to stand on guard for the Canadian way, for democracy, for our communities and our constituents. However, omnibus bills such as this are an attack on Parliament. Omnibus bills undermine Parliament.

In the words of former auditor general Sheila Fraser, “Parliament has become so undermined it is almost unable to do the job that people expect of it”.

Bill C-43 is a budget bill, but it is so much more than that. It is an omnibus bill, meaning it is a proposed law that covers a number of diverse or unrelated topics. In this case the number is a truckload. It could fill a boat to the gunwales. The bill is 400 pages long. It has more than 400 clauses. It amends dozens of acts. The bill contains a host of measures that were not even mentioned in the original budget. This is the Conservatives' sixth straight omnibus bill. It is too much for one bill.

There are some things in it that we like, such as ending pay to pay billing so Canadians are not forced to pay for a paper copy of their bills. We like that, although even that does not go far enough. The bill only bans pay to pay billing for telecom and broadcast companies. What about banks? Why should banks still be allowed to gouge Canadians? That is what they are doing. By charging Canadians for their paper bills, they are gouging Canadians, and the Conservatives are letting them get away with it.

There are also some things that we outright disagree with in this omnibus bill, like denying access to social assistance for refugee claimants. What else do they live on if not social assistance, in so many cases? This attack on the most vulnerable comes on the heels of Conservative cuts to refugee health care, a move that the Federal Court called “cruel and unusual”.

Denying access to social assistance for refugee claimants was a backbench private member's bill that was rammed into this omnibus bill after the media and anti-poverty and labour groups tore it apart.

There are parts of this omnibus bills we like; there are more parts of this omnibus bill that we do not like; and there are more parts of this bill that I will not even get to. It is not possible. In the end, there is no way that I, as the member of Parliament for St. John's South—Mount Pearl, can critique this omnibus bill, let alone analyze details of more than 400 clauses, given such limited debate and limited time, with so much stacked and rammed into one bill.

Here is how one parliamentarian described the use of omnibus bills. This is from a column by Russell Wangersky in today's The Telegram, the daily newspaper in east coast Newfoundland. This parliamentarian stated:

In the interest of democracy I ask: how can members represent their constituents on these various areas when they are forced to vote in a block on such legislation and such concerns? … I would argue that the subject matter of the bill is so diverse that a single vote on the content would put members in conflict with their own principles.

Who was the parliamentarian who was so outraged about the Liberal blockbuster omnibus bill? It was none other than the Prime Minister of Canada himself, when he was in opposition in 1994.

When the Conservative government and the Liberal governments before it ram so much legislation into omnibus bills it leads to mistakes. Who pays for those mistakes? Canadians pay for them. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians pay for those mistakes.

The Conservative government used a 2012 omnibus bill to create the new Social Security Tribunal, which hears appeals related to the Canada pension plan, disability benefits, employment insurance, and old age security. My constituency office has officially been told that the backlog of cases is one year. Unofficially the backlog is three years. That 2012 omnibus bill capped the size of the tribunal at 74 full-time staff. It also removed limits on the number of hours part-time staff can work—thus, the backlog.

Now the Conservative government is using this latest budget bill to expand the Social Security Tribunal. The government has said that the change would allow it to add employees to respond to a backlog of nearly 11,000 cases across the country related to CPP and OAS. That mistake would likely not have happened if that piece of legislation had not been lost in an omnibus bill and if members of Parliament had been given an opportunity to better scrutinize the bill. However, we were not given that opportunity, and Canadians have paid the price.

The journalist Michael Harris, who is well known in Newfoundland and Labrador for his work with the Sunday Express newspaper and for books such as Unholy Orders and Lament for an Ocean, has a new book called Party of One, reflections on a prime minister.

He quotes Peter Milliken, former speaker of the House of Commons, who stated:

Parliament can hardly be weakened any more than it already is. [The Prime Minister] can't go much further without making the institution dysfunctional....

Michael Harris also quotes the late Farley Mowat, who stated that the Prime Minister is, “the most dangerous human being ever elevated to power in Canada”.

We are opponents; we are never enemies. The Prime Minister is right. We are opponents, and the Prime Minister has to stop treating us with contempt. The Prime Minister has to stop treating us like fools.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this is just a comment rather than a question.

I have been listening to the debate this morning and the opposition members keep talking about this mammoth number of 400 or 450 pages. There is only half a page here. It is in column print and there are two columns on every page, so they cannot be counting that as a full page because it is a half page. Therefore, if there are 400 pages, that is about 200 pages.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

It is small print.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

That is a good one. It is in eight font.

[Robert Chisholm]

Do not let him get away with that.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Tell him he needs a magnifying glass to see it.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, whether they like it or lump it, that is just the way it is. If they take a look at the page, they will see it.

It was just a comment, Mr. Speaker.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Half a page, halfwit. What I would say to that, Mr. Speaker, is that we are talking about 400 clauses, we are talking about amendments to dozens of acts and we are talking about a host of measures that were not even mentioned in the original budget. There are hundreds of clauses and amendments to dozens of acts.

Do not let that Conservative member fool you, Mr. Speaker.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the great province of Newfoundland and Labrador for his speech, but I just wanted to let him know that the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs just did a unanimous report with recommendations for the government in order to improve the new veterans charter. The Conservatives said we have to study it more, which means more delays. Now they bring forward an omnibus bill that includes everything but the kitchen sink.

I would ask the hon. member if he has read through the entire thing, or realized the word “veteran” is not anywhere in that bill whatsoever. How can the government cram everything into that legislation and completely ignore our veteran community in Canada?

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is not only veterans that are not mentioned in this omnibus bill, housing is not mentioned at all. Housing is a problem from coast to coast to coast, from one end of this country to the other.

I am glad the fantastic critic for Veterans Affairs will be visiting my riding of St. John's South—Mount Pearl next month. There is a quote that resonates with the people in my riding and it is that if you can't look after veterans, don't send your people to war.

We are not looking after our veterans. The current Conservative government is not looking after our veterans, and we are going to war.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is nominally and allegedly something to do with the budget. As has been described by my friend from Newfoundland, in these 460 pages are dozens of laws changed and hundreds of clauses, with so little to do with the economy.

However, the one piece that the government is hanging on to is to take more than half a billion dollars from the EI scheme, which the Conservatives even admit is money that does not belong to the government but belongs to the people who paid into it, the employers and the employees, and create, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, 800 jobs. This is the great solution the Conservatives have to the fragile and flat economy that exists in Canada right now.

There were almost zero private-sector jobs created in the last 18 months, and the Conservatives' answer to this—

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Not true.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

This is according to StatsCan by the way. The Conservatives can yell out “not true” as much as they want, but the truth is that what Canadians are also experiencing is that the private sector is not growing. Their one so-called solution is to rip off the EI fund for more than half a billion dollars to create 800 jobs, which the PBO said would cost about $550,000 per job.

Therefore, with just a little over one-third of Canadians even being able to get employment insurance when they need it, is this a proper use of something such as that fund, to create 800 jobs at a cost of more than half a million dollars per job?

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government has been lauded in the media in some quarters for what it has done with the economy, for leading us through some turbulent economic times better than other countries around the world. However, the Conservative math is absolutely out of whack; it is absolutely out to lunch.

As the hon. member just mentioned, $500 million would be stolen from the EI fund to create 800 jobs. That is a joke.

Work of Members of Parliament

[Jean-François Fortin, Forces et Démocratie, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow I will have the pleasure of opening debate on Motion No. 535, which is designed to empower MPs so that they can defend their constituents' rights and advocate for their interests in the House.

We are elected to represent the people in our respective ridings, yet power is being increasingly concentrated within the political establishment, the group that surrounds each party leader.

Those leaders impose their will, make all the decisions and even deprive members who are not in their good books of precious time that should be reserved for championing the needs of those who elected us. It is not right that an MP's ability to do his or her job well depends entirely on the goodwill of party leaders and the unelected people in their entourage.

I invite all parliamentarians who care about getting back to the very core of democracy to take part in this debate. Together, we will combat the cynicism that has taken hold of the entire political class. Together, we will give constituents MPs that really serve them.

Poppy Campaign

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow as we approach Remembrance Day our Kelowna—Lake Country community will come together to join Royal Canadian Legion Branch 26 in Kelowna and Branch 189 in Oyama for this year's annual poppy kickoff campaign.

Under the dedicated leadership of John Broughton, 94 years young Syd Pratt, and their tireless team of volunteers, the poppy campaign will once again raise funds to support veterans and their families. Last year, the Kelowna Legion broke a record, collecting $165,000, a record it hopes to break again this year.

The red poppy is an enduring symbol of collective remembrance, which Canadians wear with great pride. In the days leading up to Remembrance Day, I encourage all of my constituents and all Canadians to help our legions succeed in reaching their poppy drive goals. Let us show our support for our veterans and the dedicated uniformed men and women who serve Canada.

As we have learned so acutely in recent days, freedom comes at a price and it is our sacred duty to remember them. We will remember them.

Forum: The Future of our River, Rapids and Canal

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on October 8, over 120 people got together at the André-Laurendeau CEGEP in LaSalle for a forum that I organized called “The Future of our River, Rapids and Canal”. They all agreed on the importance of better protecting our ecological, historical and cultural heritage. Rich and inspiring discussions led the participants to the idea of creating an urban national park.

This park would become the second national urban park in Canada located in the second-largest urban centre in Canada.

I am committed to working with them on this project, which would be a major legacy to Canada for the 150th anniversary of Confederation and the 375th anniversary of the founding of Montreal.

First Responders

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, every day first responders put their lives on the line to serve and protect Canadian society. Police, firefighters, paramedics and members of the armed forces, these brave men and women embody the true essence of what it means to serve and protect.

Recent events in Ottawa and Quebec have shone a light onto the remarkable work these Canadians do to serve our nation abroad and to keep our streets and communities safe here at home. It is no easy task and often comes with little recognition.

On behalf of my constituents in Don Valley West and all Canadians, I offer my heartfelt thanks to all who put their lives on the line, put others before themselves and keep us safe every single day.

Housing

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a report released yesterday from the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness indicates there are now 235,000 homeless people in Canada.

As that number grows, the government's response is to cut funds for housing. In Toronto, half of the people who go to sleep in a shelter every night are children. It is bad enough that the government has cut daycare, now it seems not to care about night care for the city's most vulnerable.

What is worse is that this very same report shows that despite a budget surplus on the horizon, even more cuts for housing are in the forecast.

Instead of reducing funds for housing, the government should increase funding for provinces and for municipalities, and it should solve this crisis now. If the only way the government thinks it can solve a problem is by cutting taxes, why will it not cut the taxes on private sector developers who are trying to deliver rental housing? Why is that tax not addressed in the omnibus bill?

This country has an affordable housing crisis. It also has a housing affordability crisis, in particular out west. The government is silent. I remind the ministers opposite—