House of Commons Hansard #137 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was remembrance.

Topics

Member for PeterboroughPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

York—Simcoe Ontario

Conservative

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

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, we are discussing the question of privilege arising out of Friday's decision by the Ontario Court of Justice regarding the member for Peterborough. As I understand Friday afternoon's proceedings, you are in fact tracking down primary documentation.

In the meantime, I would like to lay upon the table, in both official languages, a copy of the news release that has been issued by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada on the trial results. It is not the authoritative primary document that the court judgement would be. However, it does provide us with more information than we had on Friday.

As is noted in this news release, there were four guilty verdicts against the member for Peterborough, and three against his co-accused official agent. One pair of charges was stayed at the request of the Crown. Of specific importance to us is that the member was convicted of the offence of willfully incurring election expenses in excess of the campaign expense and contrary to subsection 443(1) of the Canadian Elections Act. Paragraph 502(1)(c) of that act places that offence in the category of illegal practices.

Subsection 502(3) then becomes the critical provision for us in relation to the offence of willfully exceeding the expense limit, and I quote:

(3) Any person who is convicted of having committed an offence that is an illegal practice or a corrupt practice under this Act shall, in addition to any other punishment for that offence prescribed by this Act, in the case of an illegal practice, during the next five years...after the date of their being so convicted, not be entitled to

(a) be elected to or sit in the House of Commons; [...]

However, the statute does not vacate the seat. It falls to us, as the House of Commons, to decide how the statutory provision is to be applied, as pages 244 and 245 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice explain:

Once a person is elected to the House of Commons, there are no constitutional provisions and few statutory provisions for removal of that Member from office. The statutory provisions rendering a Member ineligible to sit or vote do not automatically cause the seat of that Member to become vacant. By virtue of parliamentary privilege, only the House has the inherent right to decide matters affecting its own membership.

As I said in a published statement on Friday afternoon, I find that the decision in the Lindsay provincial court raises serious concerns. In short, I am proposing that leave be granted for a motion to refer this matter to the procedure and House affairs committee for examination.

It is my intention to move a motion setting out detailed areas for the committee to consider for recommendation, such as a suspension without pay pending the disposition of all legal proceedings, as well as the administrative questions related to pensions, benefits, offices, and staff which would then arise.

For the clarity of the House, Mr. Speaker, the motion I intend to bring, which I provided you notice of, would read as follows:

That the matter of the October 31, 2014, decision of the Ontario Court of Justice respecting the Member for Peterborough in relation to charges under the Canada Elections Act and, in particular, that of wilfully incurring expenses in excess of a campaign expense limit, contrary to section 443 of the Act be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with instruction that it report back to the House with recommendations, including those addressing the following issues:

(a) a suspension of the Member, without pay, pending the finalization of all legal proceedings in this matter;

(b) an expulsion of the Member, should a conviction under section 443 not be set aside by a competent authority and no further rights of appeal remain available to the Member, together with the appropriate Order, in those circumstances, for the Speaker to issue his warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for the election of the member to serve in the present Parliament for electoral district of Peterborough;

(c) the appropriate approach respecting the Member's pensions, travel status expense account, insurance and other benefits;

(d) the appropriate approach respecting the employment of the staff, and management of the offices, of the Member; and

(e) any other questions that arise as a result of this matter and its disposition.

Mr. Speaker, since I am making a lengthy series of submissions, perhaps it might be helpful to give you and the House an outline of the topics that I plan to address.

First, I will speak to the jurisdiction of the House to entertain questions concerning a member's right to sit and vote.

Second, I will address the procedure and practice relating to how the House entertains these questions.

Third, I will give attention to the present circumstances and the outstanding questions.

Finally I will set out my proposed approach as reflected in the motion that I just read.

My submissions are lengthy because there are a number of important principles and major questions to be addressed, questions which do not all lend themselves to ready answers. Moreover, some of the authorities on point may even be contradictory, which is all the more reason that I think a committee should take up this issue.

First, with respect to jurisdiction, the expulsion of a member is something which is clearly within the powers of the House. That is what O'Brien and Bosc explains as follows:

Under section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which endowed the House with the same privileges, immunities, and powers as enjoyed by the British House of Commons, the House of Commons possesses the power of expulsion. A serious matter, expulsion has a twofold purpose as explained in May:

“The purpose of expulsion is not so much disciplinary as remedial, not so much to punish Members as to rid the House of persons who are unfit for membership. It may justly be regarded as an example of the House's power to regulate its own constitution. But it is more convenient to treat it among the methods of punishment at the disposal of the House”.

Even this most drastic power has its limits, however, as is noted in Bourinot:

“The right of a legislative body to suspend or expel a member for what is sufficient cause in its own judgment is undoubted. Such a power is absolutely necessary to the conservation of the dignity and usefulness of a body”. [...]

The House may expel a Member for offences committed outside his or her role as an elected representative or committed outside a session of Parliament. As Maingot explains, it “extends to all cases where the offence is such as, in the judgment of the House, to render the Member unfit for parliamentary duties.”

Joseph Maingot, at page 188 of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, Second Edition, explains the exercise of this authority in relation to a conviction triggering a statutory disqualification on sitting and voting, the matter we are considering here:

The Canada Elections Act provides for the election of the Member, but when duly elected, the House alone is the body to determine whether a Member shall remain a Member. Thus, although a Member may be convicted of something as serious as a treason-related offence, or even sentenced to five years or more upon conviction of any indictable offence, a formal resolution of the House is still required to formally unseat him, at which moment the Speaker may not yet address his warrant for the issue of a writ for the election of a Member to fill the vacancy without an order of the House of Commons to that effect. [...]

In the final analysis, the House of Commons may exclude, suspend, or expel a Member for any reason, because it is an internal matter.

What is clear is that the ordinary civil and criminal jurisdiction of the courts does not extend to determining the rights of Members to sit in the House, and the courts equally have nothing to do with questions affecting its membership except in so far as they have been specifically designated by law to act in such matters as, for example, under [part 20 of the Canada Elections Act on contested elections].

Of course, since that book was published, the five-year threshold under the Criminal Code has been amended to be two years. However, that is not of direct relevance here, given that we are dealing with a Canada Elections Act disqualification.

In terms of procedure, the authorities are clear that the House of Commons may pronounce on a member's right to sit and to vote when it has been brought into question. When that right is questioned, it is to be treated as a matter of privilege, which is why I am rising on this question of privilege.

Maingot explains, at page 247:

A third procedure akin to “privilege” (because it would be given precedence and discussed without delay) would be the case of whether a Member was disqualified to sit and ineligible to vote. These matters may only be resolved ultimately by the House, and they are “privilege” matters because the House has the power to rule that a member is ineligible to sit and vote, and to expel the Member.

The determination of whether a Member is ineligible to sit and vote is a matter to be initiated without notice and would be given precedence by its very nature.

Lamoureux, in his March 1, 1966 ruling, at page 204 of the Journals, on a question of privilege respecting a member who had not met a deadline to file a campaign expense return, concluded with these words:

From the references and precedents just quoted it would appear to me: (a) That, even if there is a penalty provision in section 63 of the Canada Elections Act and whatever may be the terms of the order made by the judge pursuant to the said section in allowing an authorized excuse, the House is still the sole judge of its own proceedings, and for the purpose of determining on a right to be exercised within the House itself which, in this particular case, is the right of one honourable Member to sit and to vote, the House alone can interpret the relevant statute.

(b) That the procedure followed in 1875 with regard to the precedent above referred to, which bears resemblance to the case before us, seems to me to indicate that the question was dealt with at the time as being of the nature of a prima facie case of a breach of privilege.

(c) That it is not within the competence of the Speaker to decide as to the question of substance or as to the disallowance of a vote, and that such decisions are to be made by the House itself.

That 1966 ruling was not followed up with a motion in the House.

Also, it is worth pointing out that in the 1875 case that was just referenced, related to an issue of a member, who having resigned and been re-elected in the ensuing by-election sat and voted after the by-election without retaking the oath of allegiance, Maingot, at page 212, speaks to who takes leadership of this type of proceeding:

In any event, while any Member may move to examine the conduct of another Member, where a Member has been convicted of a serious offence, the motion to declare his seat vacant, when it is moved, is normally moved by a Member of the government.

Since the conduct of the member for Peterborough has been examined elsewhere, namely in the Ontario Court of Justice, the duty of initiative does fall to me.

Page 50 of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 24th edition, explains the role of the government House leader, including:

...at all times, being responsible to the House as a whole, he 'advises the House in every difficulty as it arises'.

Because it is such a rare proceeding, there is no straightforward procedure written down that may be replicated here.

In fact, just three individuals have been expelled from this House on a total of four occasions. Citations 47 to 49 of Beauschesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition, recounts those cases.

First, and members probably studied this case in school:

On two occasions Louis Riel was expelled. On the first occasion he had fled from justice and had failed to obey an order of the House to appear in his place. ... When re-elected, the House, after examination, decided that he had been judged an outlaw for felony and ordered the Speaker to issue a warrant for a new writ.

The case of Fred Rose in 1946 was rather different. The Speaker laid before the House court documents regarding the conviction and sentence to six years' imprisonment of Fred Rose for conspiring to commit various offences under the Official Secrets Act...and the House ordered the Speaker to issue a warrant for a writ.

It is not necessary for the courts to come to a decision before the House acts. In 1891 charges were laid in the House against Thomas McGreevy relating to scandals in the Public Works Department. The Committee on Privileges and Elections examined the evidence and concluded that the charges were amply proven. Mr. McGreevy meanwhile had submitted his resignation, which was void since the matter had not yet been settled in the courts. The House judged Mr. McGreevy to be guilty of a contempt of the House as well as certain of the charges and ordered his expulsion.

More recently, the House may have been in the position to consider a member's expulsion, but events superseded the point, as explained at footnote 477 on page 245 of O'Brien and Bosc:

In 1989...Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Kingsway) rose on a question of privilege with respect to the conduct of Mr. Grisé (Chambly) who had pleaded guilty to charges of breach of trust and fraud. Mr. Robinson stated that if the Speaker found the matter to be prima facie, he would move a motion that Mr. Grisé be expelled from the House and his seat declared vacant.... Speaker Fraser took the matter under advisement. Before he could render his decision, Mr. Grisé resigned his seat.

A review of the records of the House will elaborate upon the details of these cases.

Beyond those four incidents, our provincial and territorial legislatures have yet more precedents that could be reviewed, some of which may have been neat and tidy affairs, and others that were the opposite.

Of an expulsion from Manitoba's Legislative Assembly in 1980, its then Clerk Assistant, Gord Mackintosh—who has, for the last 21 years, been an NDP MLA—summed up those proceedings in an article published in the Canadian Parliamentary Review:

...it is clear that legislatures have great discretionary powers to expel members and have at times invoked this prerogative. Through customary usages, certain parliamentary procedures have been followed in expulsion cases but no hard and fast rules can ever be established. Each Assembly's approach to an expulsion is almost entirely unpredictable. Political considerations of the day, recognized procedure, legislation and case law all play a role. Manitoba's “Wilson affair” may have been an unfortunate incident but it did offer interesting insights into this little used form of Parliamentary privilege.

It is important that we do not fall into the jumble of proceedings that was witnessed in that incident, which is why I am advocating for a committee reference here.

As I indicated earlier in response to my friend, the current state of the judicial proceedings is such that we have a verdict but a sentencing has not taken place. That sentencing hearing is to take place on Friday, November 21.

As at least one journalist has pointed out on Twitter, the sentencing judge could theoretically give the member for Peterborough an absolute discharge or a conditional discharge. I shall not review the same terms, but under the Criminal Code, that kind of discharge would have the effect of negating the condition precedent, that being a conviction, which is the condition precedent for the section 502 disqualification.

For that reason, as I said earlier, it would be premature at this time for the House to suspend.

However, referring the matter to the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs would not be premature. It would be appropriate, and it could deal with the matter at the appropriate time, following the sentencing hearing.

What that would also allow is for this House to take action right now, at an earlier point in time, to show that we were in carriage of the matter and acting appropriately.

There is the question of the appeal, and this relates to conducting an expulsion immediately upon a guilty finding. While the status of the member for Peterborough could change that quickly, it may also change further down the road, following an appeal. The member for Peterborough has already stated his intention to appeal the verdict, but what would happen if the trial judge's verdict is overturned?

While British electoral law provides for a convicted member's seat to be vacated, unlike our law, that law was, however, amended in recent years to provide for the possibility of an appeal court overturning a verdict. Page 35 of Erskine May describes it best:

On conviction by a criminal court, a person guilty of a corrupt or illegal practice is disqualified for the same periods as above; if he or she has been elected, there are provisions for the disqualification not to begin for a maximum of three months while an appeal is pending, during which time the person may not perform any of his or her functions as a Member of Parliament.

Then footnote 9 on page 36 explains the prior state of law and presumably the reason motivating the Westminister Parliament to amend the law:

In 1999, before the current provisions were made, a member was convicted of a corrupt practice in relation to a declaration of election expenses, and the Speaker announced that the seat was accordingly vacant. The conviction was then overturned on appeal, and the Speaker asked the Attorney General to seek a declaration by the High Court on whether the Member was entitled to resume her seat. The court determined that the Member was so entitled.

This quandary is summarized in McGee's Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, third edition, and is followed by this observation at page 30:

Nevertheless, a successful appeal against conviction would seem to remove the justification for disqualification in the first place and the same principles for avoiding the loss of a member's seat, if this was still possible, may apply in New Zealand.

Further down that page in respect of an electoral sense, we read:

The same principles for avoiding disqualification in the case of a successful appeal of a conviction of a corrupt electoral practice as was discussed above in regard to conviction for a crime would seem to apply, if this is still possible.

Therefore, it is not unsurprising to read that Maingot cautions at page 188 on proceeding hastily:

It still remains the decision of the House itself and it is probably that, before the House expels a Member, all avenues of appeal will have been exhausted.....

This point is re-articulated by O'Brien and Bosc at page 245:

When there has been a criminal conviction, the House of Commons has acted only when sufficient evidence against a Member has been tabled (i.e., judgements sentencing the Member and appeals confirming the sentence).

Maingot elaborates at page 212:

In all of the instances both in Canada and in the U.K., the House will go to great lengths to have all available evidence, e.g. judgments sentencing the Member and appeals confirming the sentence before it, prior to embarking on the serious course of expelling one of its Members. In the case of Fred Rose, the House waited until all appeals were exhausted and until it was clear that the Member could not fulfil his parliamentary duties because of his prison sentence. The task is rendered easier for the House when the Member is sentenced to prison, and the instance as yet to arise of a Member convicted of a crime involving serious moral turpitude for which the sentence is suspended. In such an event, the House would weigh the question of fitness of the person to remain a Member, should it become seized of the issue.

There is the question of the sub judice convention.

By the very existence of appeal proceedings, this matter will remain before the courts, or to borrow a phrase we use often here, sub judice. Page 99 of O'Brien and Bosc describes the sub judice convention as such:

It is accepted practice that, in the interests of justice and fair play, certain restrictions should be placed on the freedom of Members of Parliament to make reference in the course of debate to matters awaiting judicial decisions, and that such matters should not be the subject of motions or questions in the House. Though loosely defined, the interpretation of this convention is left to the Speaker. The word “convention” is used as no “rule” exists to prevent Parliament from discussing a matter which is sub judice. The acceptance of a restriction is a voluntary restraint on the part of the House to protect an accused person or any other party to a court action or judicial inquiry from suffering any prejudicial effect from public discussion of the issue.

On the application of the sub judice convention in criminal proceedings, O'Brien and Bosc explain it at pages 628 and 629:

No distinction has ever been made in Canada between criminal courts and civil courts for the purpose of applying the sub judice convention, and it has also had application to certain tribunals other than courts of law. The convention exists to guarantee everyone a fair trial and to prevent any undue influence prejudicing a judicial decision or a report of a tribunal of inquiry. Indeed, in the view of the Special Committee on the Rights and Immunities of Members, “prejudice is most likely to occur in respect of criminal cases and civil cases of defamation where juries are involved”.

Where criminal cases are concerned, the precedents are consistent in barring reference to such matters before judgement has been rendered and during any appeal. Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters that are before a criminal court, not only in order to protect those persons who are undergoing trial and stand to be affected whatever its outcome, but also because the trial could be affected by debate in the House. It has been established that the convention would cease to apply, as far as criminal cases are concerned, when judgement has been rendered. The Speaker has confirmed that a matter becomes sub judice again if an appeal is entered following a judgement.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, does that mean that the sub judice convention prevents us from discussing here in our House of Commons the situation of the member for Peterborough until all appeal proceedings have concluded? That answer may lie on page 627 of O'Brien and Bosc, which states:

The sub judice convention is first and foremost a voluntary exercise of restraint on the part of the House to protect an accused person, or other party to a court action or judicial inquiry, from any prejudicial effect of public discussion of the issue. Secondly, the convention also exists, as Speaker Fraser noted, “to maintain a separation and mutual respect between legislative and judicial branches of government”. Thus, the constitutional independence of the judiciary is recognized. However, as Speaker Sauvé explained, the sub judice convention has never stood in the way of the House considering a prima facie matter of privilege vital to the public interest or to the effective operation of the House and its Members.

Madam Sauvé's ruling was favourably cited by you, Mr. Speaker, in your ruling of June 18, 2013, at page 18551 of the Debates. In that case, which was also one on respecting members' rights to sit and vote being called into question while judicial proceedings were pending, your ruling offered this perspective:

...the Chair is faced with the fact that some have argued that it is just and prudent to continue to await the conclusion of legal proceedings, while others have maintained that the two members ought, even now, not to be sitting in the House.

I believe that the House must have an opportunity to consider these complex issues.

In short, it would appear that discussing certain issues, such as determining how to resolve a member's right to sit and vote, warrants priority over the sub judice convention. Therefore, I believe that we can proceed here.

Finally, I want to address one modern development in the context of our ancient privileges, and that is to consider the extent, if any, that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to our deliberations on this issue. Though I recognize clearly that it is not the place of the Chair to decide questions of law, the issue which I am about to canvass is one which could become inextricably linked to the matter of the member for Peterborough, so it is important to put them before the House for the benefit of members.

O'Brien and Bosc take the position, at page 79, following recent court cases, including the Supreme Court of Canada decisions in New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. v. Nova Scotia (Speaker of the House of Assembly) and Harvey v. New Brunswick (Attorney General), as follows:

One question that has been raised and dealt with by the Supreme Court on three occasions is the relationship of parliamentary privilege to other parts of the Constitution, particularly the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Since parliamentary privilege and Charter rights are part of the Constitution, each has equal value. The Court has consistently held that the Charter does not override parliamentary privilege.

While the courts play a role in determining if a privilege exists and is necessary for the legislative and deliberative functions of the House, the courts or other institutions cannot interfere with the exercise of the privilege or otherwise direct the affairs of the Commons.

However, the Supreme Court has not directly addressed the intersection of parliamentary privilege, expulsion, and the charter. While that court did consider the expulsion of a member of a legislative assembly in Harvey, the majority reached its decision on the basis of an analysis of the charter's provisions relative to the impugned statute.

Madam Justice McLachlin, as she then was, did, however, explore parliamentary privilege in her concurring reasons. At page 55, she stated:

I am of the view that the disqualification for office raised in this case falls within the historical privilege of the legislature and is hence immune from judicial review.

Later, at paragraph 80, she added:

It is clear that had the New Brunswick legislature simply expelled [Mr. Harvey] , that decision would fall squarely within its parliamentary privilege and the courts would have no power to review it.

In this case, the law of parliamentary privilege was not argued before any court until the Attorney General of Canada, as an intervener at the Supreme Court of Canada, raised it. Writing for the majority, Mr. Justice La Forest disposed of this issue at paragraph 19, where he stated:

...the issue was not seriously argued before us. In fact it was willingly conceded that it was appropriate to judge the provisions of s. 119(c) in light of the Charter. Given that the parties to the present appeal have chosen not to ground their argument on the basis that expulsion and disqualification are privileges of the Legislative Assembly, and given that there were no submissions by any party on the point, it is not necessary to decide that issue here.

Another post-charter expulsion, accomplished through a special statutory provision, drew this obiter comment from Chief Justice Glube, then of the trial division of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia. The application judge in MacLean v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General), at paragraph 30, said:

In my opinion, the power to expel a person by resolution of the Assembly remains a valid function of the Assembly, and if by resolution, would not normally be reviewable by the Court.

As summarized in his 1987 Canadian Parliamentary Review article, “The Legislature, The Charter, and Billy Joe MacLean”, John Holtby wrote:

For politicians who saw the Charter as an intrusion by the Courts into parliamentary life, the case of Billy Joe MacLean has shown that the Courts continue to respect the rights and privileges of the House.

This accords with the view expressed, following the first Supreme Court of Canada decision on privilege, New Brunswick Broadcasting, by Professor Andrew Heard in his article, “The Expulsion and Disqualification of Legislators: Parliamentary Privilege and the Charter of Rights”, published in the Dalhousie Law Journal, at page 393. It states:

One can firmly conclude that the privileges of Canadian legislative assemblies include the power to expel their members. It is necessary to both the discipline and integrity of any legislature that members may be removed from office. Expulsion was not reviewable by the courts prior to the Charter and is not now subject to the Charter, according to the ratio of New Brunswick Broadcasting.

On the other hand, a former member of the House, Professor Ted McWhinney, wrote in a 1989 Canadian Parliamentary Review article, entitled “Forfeiture of Office on Conviction of an 'Infamous Crime” , this analysis of the 1980 Manitoba expulsion that I referred to previously:

—at the time of the Legislative Assembly's action an appeal against the criminal conviction had already been filed and the Member concerned was released on bail. Such legislative action -- literally, "jumping the gun" on the final determination by the courts of law of the guilt or innocence of the Member concerned for the crime with which he was originally charged and which formed the basis of the Legislature's own action -- would seem capable, only with extreme difficulty, of being reconciled with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms' general constitutional guarantees of due process of law.

As recently as 2012, lawyers in the Library of Parliament were expressing caution on this front. In a briefing paper entitled “Criminal Charges and Parliamentarians”, the authors note, at page 4:

In the past, the authority of the House over its members was considered to be absolute; it was said that the House could expel a member “for such reasons as it deems fit.” This discretion may have been somewhat circumscribed with the advent of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is now arguable that the House would have to proceed in a reasonable and fair manner, giving the member involved an opportunity to answer any charges.

Professor Enid Campbell, in her pre-charter article, “Expulsion of Members of Parliament”, published in the The University of Toronto Law Journal in 1971, wrote:

There is no convincing reason why the rules of natural justice should not be held to apply to parliamentary proceedings for the expulsion of members. Members have distinct rights and privileges...and their expulsion deprives them of those rights and privileges...Cases of deprivation of public office were amongst the first to which the audi alteram partem rule was applied...

On that front, recommendations were made in the late 1990s at the Westminster House of Commons in relation to members charged with contempt. Though this is not a charge of contempt against the member for Peterborough, some of the content outlined at page 200 of Erskine May could be of relevance in proceedings before a committee.

Meanwhile, Maingot's comments, at page 189, may be taken as a suggestion that the finding of facts are of importance, and that the House need not duplicate these efforts. He said:

A Member's right to sit may nevertheless be affected by a decision of the courts. Where in a reference to the court on the recommendation of a committee of the House the court finds that a Member is disqualified and ineligible to sit and vote, the House of Parliament of Canada would probably follow the U.K. practice and unseat the Member.

Having reviewed of all these precedencies and all of these considerations, what is the best way forward? The next citation that I would like to quote is quite persuasive in answering that.

Sir John Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada, fourth edition, at pages 161 and 162 states:

In the Canadian as in the English House of Commons, “whenever any question is raised affecting the seat of a member, and involving matters of doubt, either in law or fact, it is customary to refer it to the consideration of a committee”.

That citation was cited by you, Mr. Speaker, favourably, in your ruling of June 18, 2013, at page 18551, of the Debates, which I earlier referenced.

However, not only do I find the citation impelling because of the weight of the authority supporting it, but also because it is practical. That is why I want to see this matter referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. That committee is best placed to consider all of the issues and questions I have canvassed in these submissions such as: What should be done if the sentence is a discharge?; What should be made of appeal proceedings?; Does the charter apply or inform in any way to the House or a committee's consideration of this?

The bottom line, too, is something that the committee is best placed to sort out: What is the overarching result that should be fashioned here? The committee needs to find a way which balances the court's finding of guilt, which should not be taken lightly, since it was arrived at on a standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt”, with the possibility that an appeal court could change that outcome.

The balanced solution is, in my view, one of suspension without pay until the verdict becomes final or is overturned. That would certainly be within the authority of the House to implement. Page 189 of Maingot declares:

In the final analysis, the House of Commons may exclude, suspend or expel a member for any reason, because it is an internal matter.

As to the notion of suspending without pay, pages 244 and 245 of O'Brien and Bosc relate that:

By virtue of parliamentary privilege, only the House has the inherent right to decide matters affecting its own membership. Indeed, the House decides for itself if a Member should be permitted to sit on committees, receive a salary or even be allowed to keep his or her seat.

Additionally, a suspension pending appeal would be consistent with the current British practice, which I cited earlier, and accords with the suggested New Zealand approach.

In the Manitoba case I mentioned before, the Legislative Assembly had adopted a motion, “That Mr. Wilson be ordered to withdraw from the Chamber and remain outside the Chamber unless a competent authority set aside his conviction”.

The member's expulsion was not perfected until after the Supreme Court of Canada had denied leave to appeal in his criminal case.

The most recent expulsion of a parliamentarian in Canada, in Nunavut on October 24 this year, followed a period of suspension, albeit imposed for disciplinary reasons related to the member's conduct.

A suspension would not be accomplished as simply as it might sound. Details would need to be worked out respecting pension accrual, travel accounts, health insurance and other benefits.

What about the member's offices? Since people in Peterborough will still be looking for services provided by the member's constituency office, should his office continue to function, but perhaps under the management of one of the whips, consistent with what happens when a seat is vacant? These, too, are decisions and details which ought to be ironed out. A committee is the best venue for doing just that type of work.

To that end, Mr. Speaker, should you find a prima facie case of privilege, I am prepared to move this motion: That the matter of the October 31, 2014 decision of the Ontario Court of Justice respecting the member for Peterborough in relation to charges under the Canada Elections Act—and, in particular, that of wilfully incurring expenses in excess of a campaign expense limit, contrary to section 443 of the Act—be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with instruction that it report back to the House with recommendations, including those addressing the following issues: (a) a suspension of the member without pay, pending the finalization of all legal proceedings in this matter; (b) an expulsion of the member, should a conviction under section 443 not be set aside by a competent authority and no further rights of appeal remain available to the member, together with the appropriate order, in those circumstances, for the Speaker to issue his warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for the election of a member to serve in the present Parliament for the electoral district of Peterborough; (c) the appropriate approach respecting the member's pensions, travel status expense account, insurance and other benefits; (d) the appropriate approach respecting the employment of the staff, and management of the offices, of the member; and (e) any other questions that arise as a result of this matter and its disposition.

Though I think this argument is sound, such that you can find a prima facie of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I would invite you to reserve your decision for a period of time so that the member for Peterborough might have the opportunity of making an intervention if he wishes.

In fact, may I recommend, through you, that one of our Table clerks alert the member to this question of privilege having been raised and that an intervention would be invited? This would ensure, at a minimum, that the basic principles of fundamental justice, audi alteram partem, may be honoured before you give your decision.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, should you find favour with my point of privilege as I have raised and the House has had an opportunity to consider that motion, such an opportunity could also be exercised at the committee that would consider the questions of suspension/expulsion and other related matters.

Member for PeterboroughPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the government House leader for raising those interesting precedents. Unfortunately, much of what he has said is most appropriately part of the debate we will have depending on your ruling. Therefore, I want to be clear that if you rule there is a prima facie case that there is a question of privilege here, and you will of course be ruling on the question of privilege that we have raised, the government members might have their own opinions to give to the House and we will find a lot of debate on the appropriate course of action to take.

It is your role, Mr. Speaker, to decide whether you believe there is a prima facie case of a question of privilege. If you do decide there is, I will be moving the following motion: That, with regard to the guilty verdict of October 31, 2014, against the member for Peterborough on four counts of violating the Canada's Election Act, the House: (a) immediately suspend the member of: (1) the right to sit or vote in this place; (2) the right to sit on any committee of this place; (3) the right to collect his sessional allowance as a member of Parliament; and, (b) that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for further study of appropriate measures concerning the member for Peterborough's membership in the House of Commons.

This is the question of privilege that is at the origin of the discussion.

You have an important ruling to make, Mr. Speaker, and we certainly understand that you may want to take some time, given the precedents around this issue. However, that is the motion we will raise if you believe there is a prima facie case. As the government House leader has just done, which is express his strongly-held opinion, he will be given the opportunity, as will all members, to express their opinions on this important case.

Member for PeterboroughPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I thank the hon. opposition House leader for raising this question and the government House leader for his contributions, as well the member for Winnipeg North.

As members have indicated, this is a very serious question that touches on the rights of a member to take a seat. I will come back to the House as quickly as possible with a ruling on this question.

The House resumed from October 31 consideration of the motion that Bill C-43, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

There are seven minutes left for the hon. member for Random—Burin—St. George's.

The hon. member for Random—Burin—St. George's.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Judy Foote Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the budget implementation bill no. 2. I only wish I could say that I am pleased to speak to this particular bill. However, Bill C-43 does nothing to address many of the challenges facing my constituents in Random—Burin—St. George's and Canadians in general.

This omnibus bill is clearly the product of a tired, void-of-ideas government that has completely lost touch with the people it is meant to serve. Once again, the Conservatives have introduced omnibus legislation full of changes that simply do not belong in a budget bill. At 460 pages, with over 400 separate clauses, Bill C-43 represents an abuse of power. To use a single omnibus budget bill to limit debate on a host of unrelated measures is undemocratic. If the government does not recognize this, it really is time to put it out to pasture.

Using a single omnibus budget bill to limit debate prevents members of Parliament from doing their jobs and properly scrutinizing legislation. Since forming government in 2006, in its rush to push through legislation, and by ignoring input from other parties, the Conservatives have cemented a disturbing number of preventable errors in law. By my count, Bill C-43 attempts to fix no fewer than 10 of those sloppy mistakes, including many from previous omnibus budget bills.

The government has proven time and time again that it is not interested in input from anyone outside the Conservative caucus and the Prime Minister's Office, even if it means that Canadians would be negatively impacted.

Take for instance the so-called EI tax credit proposed in Bill C-43. This flawed measure actually discourages job creation and economic growth. This measure in particular is bad for employers, bad for workers and those seeking work, and bad for the Canadian economy as a whole.

In a recent report, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that the Conservatives' EI plan would cost $550 million over two years and would create only 800 net new jobs. This translates to a cost of almost $700,000 to taxpayers for each new job created under the Conservative program. Canadians deserve a plan for jobs and growth. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed that the Conservatives' EI plan provides neither.

While the Minister of Finance claims that EI cuts for small businesses would produce thousands of new jobs, the numbers prove otherwise. The reality is that the government's changes to EI would encourage businesses to stay small and would actually punish them if they grew and were successful. For instance, the Conservative changes to EI would offer up to $2,234.04 to small businesses for firing a worker but only up to $190.52 for hiring a worker. Furthermore, there is no requirement for job creation. Regardless of whether a small business hired new workers, remained the same size, or even fired workers, so long as a business pays less than $15,000 in EI payroll taxes, it would qualify. This may be a tax credit, but it is certainly not a job credit.

There are currently over 6,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who had a job this time last year but who are now out of work. My constituents in Random—Burin—St. George's, and people throughout the province, face unemployment rates well above the national average.

For young workers, job creation is even more important. Youth aged 20 to 24 in Newfoundland and Labrador face higher unemployment rates than their peers throughout the country. At a time when many are struggling with high debt loads, youth unemployment is high and many young workers are forced to leave the province to seek work.

The Conservative government continues to compound the problem. What we need in Newfoundland and Labrador are more jobs, not fewer. Canadians from coast to coast to coast deserve a government with a plan to encourage job creation, not a government that is committed to limiting growth. As the Liberal leader said, Canadians from coast to coast to coast are generally worried about their future.

For the first time in our country's recent history, people are concerned that the next generation will struggle more than the present generation. Unfortunately, out of necessity, it has become common practice for adult children to live with their parents to make ends meet, and in doing so they have made it difficult, in some cases, for their parents to make ends meet. Such a practice was rarely heard of but is now more the norm than the exception.

That is why the Liberals are committed to helping create the right conditions for investment and economic prosperity, which will foster those badly needed jobs. Our proposed EI holiday on new hires would reward employers for creating new jobs instead of rewarding employers for firing workers. The Liberal plan has been applauded by job creators throughout the country, such as Restaurants Canada, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Yet the Conservative government refuses to consider a proposal that would be helpful, preferring instead to forge ahead with a proposal that is fraught with problems. Unfortunately, this is nothing new.

Since taking office, the Conservatives have also shown little respect for Canada's democratic institutions. The government has often refused to work in partnership with the provinces and territories to help solve many of the challenges it currently faces.

Last week, we heard that the government is unwilling to listen to its provincial partners in terms of amending the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act. According to an official, only Ontario was consulted about these changes, in spite of the fact that Newfoundland and Labrador would be affected by these changes. It and eight other provinces had absolutely no say. The Conservative government did not just ignore input from Newfoundland and Labrador, it ignored Newfoundland and Labrador altogether.

This amendment was not one the provinces asked for. In fact, the same official has confirmed that there had been absolutely no demands from any province for this change, none whatsoever. It is puzzling that the Conservative government is committed to pushing through a change that no province asked for and no province seems to want, while ignoring calls for policies and programs that would provide real benefits to Canadians.

In some cases, Bill C-43 would not add support. What it would do is add taxes.

Many of my constituents of Random--Burin--St. George's, as in other ridings, are seniors, who are often living on fixed incomes. For the government to add GST and HST to some services provided by non-profit health care facilities, such as residential services provided at an old age home, is simply wrong. At a time when the rate of poverty among Canadian seniors is rising, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is warning that current pension supports may be insufficient, adding to their financial burden is just not right.

Now I will speak about what is not in the budget.

In a 460-page document, with over 400 separate clauses, there is not a single mention of veterans. After years of ignoring the needs of Canadian veterans and their families, the Conservative government had an opportunity to finally act. Instead, it chose to remain silent.

In June, the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs outlined a series of measures that would make a difference in the lives of veterans and their families, but without further legislation, the Department of Veterans Affairs can only act on the recommendations that do not require any new money. This leaves it unable to implement many of the recommendations supported even by the government's own committee members.

In its response to the committee report, the government stated:

The more complex recommendations require further inter-departmental work, budgetary analysis, and coordination with a wide range of federal departments, as well as with the Veterans Ombudsman and Veterans' groups.

They will be dealt with at a later date.

Why do complex recommendations to support veterans require additional scrutiny, when the Conservatives maintain that many of the other measures proposed in the bill do not? Surely amending the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act is a complex measure. Yet without consulting with the provinces, the government saw fit to include it. Why will the government not give veterans the same priority? Bill C-43 was an opportunity to implement these recommendations. However, it has proven to be yet another opportunity wasted under the Conservative government. Sadly, Canadian veterans and their families will have to wait another year in the hope that the Conservative government will finally follow through.

This also would have been an opportune time to restore and enhance search and rescue capabilities; support Canadians with mental health issues, including PTSD; and address many more priority items.

Unlike the Conservatives and their flawed budget implementation bill, the Liberals are committed to growing Canada's economy and helping to create jobs by investing in infrastructure, education, environmental initiatives, our culture, and science and technology. We believe that government must not only create the right conditions for economic growth but must also ensure that growth is sustainable and will help struggling families.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

4:35 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, as a representative and as the leader of the Green Party, I am getting very few occasions to speak to this omnibus budget bill. With time allocation, it looks as though I will be denied any opportunity to give a 10-minute presentation on all the things that are wrong with this omnibus bill.

Permit me to thank my hon. colleague for allowing me to ask her to confirm that this is in fact an omnibus bill that we have not, as many Conservatives members have said in this place, had for an abundant amount of time to study. It is not the budget that was tabled in the spring. It is an entirely different piece of legislation, encompassing changes to many different pieces of legislation, many of which have nothing at all to do with the budget.

In the guise of a budgetary bill, measures that should properly go to committees for study, even measures we might support, like the creation of the Cambridge Bay research station, will only go to a committee of finance for inadequate study. I ask if my hon. colleague would not agree that this bill should never have been presented as an omnibus budget bill.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Judy Foote Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question, recognizing again the limited amount of time she has to speak to this bill itself.

She is absolutely right, in fact, that there is so much contained in this omnibus budget bill that it really does not give parliamentarians the opportunity they need to act on behalf of the people they represent. We do not get to scrutinize the legislation. Everything gets rolled into one bill, and by the time we get to read the bill and look at the impact it would have on Canadians from coast to coast to coast, we are limited in terms of the amount of time we get to discuss it. These omnibus bills that are put forward by the Conservative Party on a regular basis are not fair, not only to the parliamentarians who represent Canadians but to Canadians in general, because they need an opportunity to hear what is being said and proposed.

At the end of the day, we end up voting on a bill that we have had little time to digest. Canadians have no idea what is involved in it. Then we are asked to vote. Maybe some things are good in it, but there are lots of things that are bad in it. We cannot vote for the good, because we cannot possibly vote for the bad.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

4:35 p.m.

NDP

Hélène LeBlanc NDP LaSalle—Émard, QC

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

Our economic situation is becoming increasingly difficult, and there are huge disparities between the different regions in Canada. Could she explain why this type of bill, this so-called budget implementation bill, only increases the disparities between the different regions in Canada?

I would also like her to explain how this bill, like many of the government's previous bills, continues to widen the gap between rich and poor and between men and women. I would like to hear more from her about the fact that these bills only widen the gap between rich and poor rather than ensuring that wealth is fairly distributed in Canada.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Judy Foote Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL

Mr. Speaker, anyone looking at what is being proposed in this particular bill would have to agree that it is not fair. It does not matter where they live in the country. The fact that the government did not even consult with the provinces, with the exception of one province, Ontario, in terms of fiscal financial arrangements clearly points again to the fact that the Conservatives have no respect or consideration for the impact legislation they propose will have on Canadians, no matter what region of the country they live in, their walk of life, or their income.

We are finding that we have a budget on which input is limited. It is only input from the Conservative caucus or from the Prime Minister's Office that is considered. We are members of Parliament who represent Canadians throughout this country. We can bring valuable input to the table. Yet the current government chooses to put measures in place that will have a negative impact on women, children, seniors, and veterans, and the Conservatives are not listening to how they could improve things for people from coast to coast to coast.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Drummond, The Environment; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, The Environment; the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, Health.

The hon. Minister of National Revenue.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

4:40 p.m.

Delta—Richmond East B.C.

Conservative

Kerry-Lynne Findlay ConservativeMinister of National Revenue

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to support Bill C-43, the economic action plan 2014 act, no. 2.

Since 2006, our government has put in place a number of tax relief measures to support hard-working Canadians and their families. With balanced budgets in sight, our government is more determined than ever to provide tax relief.

We believe that good tax policy does not mean just collecting tax dollars. It also means putting money back into the hands of hard-working Canadians, so that they can save, invest and spend it as they see fit. We believe that Canada should have a tax system that rewards hard work.

One of the first family-related tax credits our government introduced in budget 2006 was the children's fitness tax credit.

It was developed based on the recommendations of a panel of experts.

Our government introduced the children's fitness tax credit to promote physical fitness and physical activity in children, because we want all children to have the chance to grow up healthy and happy in this great country. It is one of our government's most popular tax credits, providing about $150 million in tax relief to 1.4 million Canadian families each year.

In 2011, we promised Canadians that we would enhance the children's fitness tax credit as soon as we had succeeded in balancing the budget. We are now making good on that commitment by proposing both to double the maximum amount that can be claimed and to make the credit refundable.

The maximum amount that can be claimed under the tax credit will increase from $500 to $1,000 for 2014 and subsequent years.

Parents will be able to take advantage of the new limit in the spring of 2015 when they file their tax returns for 2014.

Obviously, they have to submit receipts with their claims.

The children's fitness tax credit will become refundable starting with the 2015 tax year. This change will increase the opportunity for low-income families to benefit from further tax savings. When fully implemented, the measures we are proposing will deliver additional tax relief to about 850,000 families who enrol their children in eligible fitness activities. I know that all four of my children were active in sports, in and outside of school.

This sets the foundation for a long, healthy, active adulthood. These enhancements build on the long list of actions that our government has taken to support Canadian families.

For example, we introduced the registered disability savings plan to help families with children with disabilities.

We introduced the universal child care benefit, first time home buyers' tax credit, public transit tax credit, family caregiver tax credit, and so much more.

Our government is equally committed to supporting Canadian businesses, especially small and medium-sized businesses, the backbone of our economy. Small businesses represent about half of the jobs in the private sector and a third of Canada's gross domestic product.

That is why, under the economic action plan 2014 act, no. 2, we are taking measures to make small businesses even stronger.

Our government is proposing to introduce a new tax credit that will save small businesses more than half a billion dollars over two years. This small business job credit will help small businesses by lowering their employment insurance, EI, premiums in 2015 and 2016. The savings they realize will make it easier for them to grow their businesses.

The small business job credit lowers EI premiums for eligible businesses from the current legislated rate of $1.88 to $1.60 per $100 of insurable earnings in 2015 and 2016. Any business that pays employer EI premiums of $15,000 or less in those years will be eligible for the credit.

What this means is that almost 90% of all EI premium-paying businesses in Canada will receive the credit, reducing their EI payroll taxes by nearly 15%. The new small business job credit is expected to save small employers more than $550 million over 2015 and 2016.

We are making sure that there will be no increased paperwork associated with the new tax credit. Business owners do not have to apply for it. The CRA will automatically establish eligibility for 2015 and 2016 separately based on the employer EI premiums paid for each of those years.

The CRA will calculate the credit and apply it to any outstanding balance on the company's payroll account and then reimburse the company for any remaining amount.

Besides the two tax credits that I just highlighted, the economic action plan 2014 act, no. 2, contains many other measures that affirm our commitment to economic growth, families and communities.

One of our government's key areas of concern is the issue of international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. Bill C-43 contains our proposals to prevent the shifting of certain Canadian source income to low or no tax jurisdictions, encourage the exchange of tax information, and add new conditions for qualifying under the regulated foreign financial institution tax rules.

Our government has made great strides in improving the fairness and integrity of Canada's tax system. We believe that a strong and well-functioning tax system is of great value to Canadians and to Canadian businesses. The steps we have taken since 2006 and the measures included in Bill C-43 help to keep Canadian tax rates low and competitive. Low tax rates are an incentive to work, save and invest in Canada. They foster economic growth and prosperity for the benefit of all Canadians.

Canada's economic action plan is working.

Canada has had one of the strongest job creation records in the G7 since the height of the recession. Nearly 1.2 million net new jobs have been created in this country since July 2009.

Globally recognized authorities, from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to the International Monetary Fund, have ranked Canada as one of the best countries in the world in which to do business. They expect Canada to be one of the strongest growing economies in the G7 over this year and next.

Canadians are seeing the results of sound economic policies in action.

Personal income taxes are now 10% lower than they were before 2006, and the average family of four now pays close to $3,400 less in taxes. Overall, the federal tax burden is at the lowest rate it has been in over 50 years.

I encourage all members of the House to join me in supporting the economic action plan 2014 act, no. 2.

Members' votes would allow Canadian families and businesses to continue to reap the benefits of our sound fiscal policy.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we recognize middle-class families. The Conservatives talk about this income splitting, and the Prime Minister has been talking a lot about it lately, but middle-class families should not have to pay more to give families such as the Prime Minister's a $2,000 tax break. The Conservative income splitting plan favours the wealthy. It is bad for growth and it is bad for the middle class.

The previous minister of finance commented at great length in terms of how income splitting was not good, sound policy. Why does the member believe that the former minister of finance, the late Mr. Flaherty, was wrong in his assessment and that the Prime Minister is on the right track? In fact, the biggest group paying for this would be the middle class of Canada.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative Delta—Richmond East, BC

Mr. Speaker, our very honoured colleague, the previous minister of finance Jim Flaherty, was speaking of a plan that was only laid out at the time in very general terms. The plan that has come forward is not the plan he was speaking of when he talked about that.

Our plan would reach over four million families and is part of a suite of actions. It is not standing alone. In other words, the family tax cut, a federal tax credit that allows the higher income spouse to transfer up to $50,000 of taxable income, is part of the proposal. However, along with this is increasing the universal child care benefit for children under the age of six, where parents would receive a benefit of $160 a month for each child. That is up from $100 a month. It would expand the UCCB to children age six through 17. As of January 2015, under the expanded plan, parents would receive a benefit of $60 per month for children age six through 17.

It would also increase the child care expense deduction dollar limits by $1,000. The maximum amounts that could be claimed would increase to $8,000 from $7,000 for children under age seven and to $5,000 from $4,000 for children age seven through 16.

Even The New York Times has recognized that our middle class in Canada is doing extremely well.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

4:50 p.m.

NDP

Hélène LeBlanc NDP LaSalle—Émard, QC

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech by the Minister of National Revenue and the answers that she gave in the House of Commons. I am always surprised by the answers she gives. She listed a series of procedures and talked about increases to tax credits.

Given that she is in charge of the Canada Revenue Agency, I am wondering whether, at some point, the Canadian tax system might run into difficulty or become overburdened. The government has added small tax credits here and there in all of the massive budgets it has brought down.

Is she not worried that this administrative burden will be just as heavy as the omnibus bills that are introduced in the House of Commons?

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative Delta—Richmond East, BC

Mr. Speaker, the Canada Revenue Agency is a professional tax administrator. It knows very well, and is leading the world, in methods to collect tax and to sustain a very equitable tax administration that keeps our tax base solid and working for all Canadians and all taxpayers in a fair and equitable manner.

Tax credits are a targeted way of helping Canadian families. Our government is very proud of its record for introducing various tax credits that benefit families. In this case, we are concentrating our remarks more on Canadian families with children. They, of course, are the future of Canada, so it behooves us all to vote for a budget bill that helps them out.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

4:55 p.m.

Simcoe—Grey Ontario

Conservative

Kellie Leitch ConservativeMinister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women

Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government has focused on what matters to Canadians: job creation, economic growth and Canada's long-term prosperity.

Canada's economy has had one of the best economic performances in the G7 for a few years now, during both the global recession and the recovery.

As I have said, we are moving forward, with creating jobs, economic growth, and long-term prosperity being our focus. There are numerous things in Bill C-43 that would help do that, that would help create jobs and opportunities for Canadians, and some specific measures.

Among those, one that I want to highlight to begin with is the new small business job credit. Our government recently introduced this small business tax credit, a credit for small businesses that would reduce payroll taxes 15% over the next two years. It is estimated that this would result in savings of approximately $550 million for small businesses over two years. Our government recognizes the fundamental importance of small businesses in fuelling the Canadian economy. That is what this shows.

I want to be clear that this is very important for the constituents in my riding of Simcoe—Grey, whether it be the Nottawasaga Inn, where Sylvia Biffis runs a great enterprise and wants to hire more individuals; or Rebecca who is running Clearview Tea and wants to ensure she has that next employee; or finally the 100 Mile Store in Creemore, where Jackie and Sandra are running a great business but if they could expand they would look forward to it. That is exactly what this small business tax credit would do, provide them a great opportunity.

The second item that I will touch on is something that is very important to me, both personally and professionally. That is not just professionally as a member of Parliament and because of the constituents I have, the thousands of families in my riding, but as a pediatric orthopedic surgeon. Our government believes that fitness is an important part of healthy lifestyles, and that habits should be encouraged from a very young age. As a pediatric surgeon, I can attest to that and to our need to focus on ensuring that children have an opportunity to be fit and healthy.

As a result, in budget 2010 we introduced the children's fitness tax credit, a non-refundable $500 tax credit for registration costs associated with an eligible program of physical activity for children under the age of 16.

In October of this year, the Prime Minister announced that our government planned to double the children's fitness tax credit—which would go from $500 to $1,000—and to make it refundable. This would increase the benefits for the low-income families who claim the credit.

What does this mean? It means that we are making it more affordable for Canadians and more importantly Canadian children to participate in an active lifestyle. I chaired the panel on the children's fitness tax credit. I had the great opportunity in 2006 of having our late colleague, Jim Flaherty, the former minister of finance, call me at a conference and ask me if I was willing to chair the expert panel. I and two other individuals, Michael Weil and David Bassett from Vancouver, had the great opportunity of deciding how to focus the tax credit to include as many children as possible. Our task by the minister of finance was to be as inclusive as possible, to make as many children as possible, and their parents, eligible for this tax credit so that as many children as possible could be active. It did not mean just looking at Olympic sports but also dance, and ensuring that children who have disabilities have a great opportunity.

Now the doubling of this tax credit would mean that even more families would be able to participate and more important, being refundable means that all those families who may not have been eligible before would be eligible today. That is important, whether it be for the Sproule family that has, I cannot say how many, grandchildren who are active in activities and sports, or Holly Haire who is someone who works with me whose son Harrison is active in hockey, or the Special Olympics athletes that come to the Blue Mountain Resort every year to learn how to ski. All of these young people have a disability and are learning how to ski and now this is more accessible to them.

I cannot say enough great things about Dan Skelton, Dave Sinclair and Gord Canning, who help make sure that program runs.

The reason we are focused on this as a government is that we care about families. We want to ensure we are supporting them and the things that are most important to them, such as making sure that their families are healthy and happy and participating in things that are meaningful.

The third item that I will speak to is also outlined in this bill. When our government released the economic action plan in February, we promised to strengthen labour market opportunities and investments that would bring us closer to the goal of creating jobs, growth and economic prosperity.

One of our major investments was an $11 million commitment over two years and $3.3 million per year, ongoing, to reform the temporary foreign worker program. The goal of these reforms is to make sure that the program is used as it is intended and to ensure that Canadians are first in line for every available job here in Canada. It is a last and limited resource to fill those acute labour shortages through the use of the program when Canadians are not available. I think all sides of the House would agree that Canadians should always be the first in line for those available jobs.

We have brought in new changes. We brought in new rigorous application processes. We now require employers to provide more evidence that they have tried to hire Canadians first. They must disclose how many Canadians have applied for the jobs in question and how many Canadians have been interviewed for the jobs. They must also provide an explanation of why they have not hired a Canadian.

The scrutiny of employers who are using large numbers of temporary foreign workers has increased substantially. This will be gradually phased in over three years at a 10% cap on the number of low wage temporary foreign workers allowed to be on a work site. In addition, employers seeking high wage temporary foreign workers are required to develop a transition plan that outlines specifically the measures that are required to further reduce their dependency on this program. We have raised the application fee from $275 to $1,000 to ensure that the cost of administering the program, including all of the reforms, will be borne entirely by the employers who use the program and not by the taxpayer.

We have also made changes to the enforcement of the program. There will be four times as many government inspectors. One in four employers using the program will be inspected every year. Inspectors will also have greater powers to catch those breaking the rules through, for example, warrantless on-site visits, the ability to compel employers to produce relevant documents, and the ability to ban employers from the program when they break the rules.

Not only will inspectors have more power, Canadians will too. An improved confidential tip line has been launched along with a new complaints website, which is accessible from any location and any Internet connection. Any allegations of abuse of the temporary foreign worker program will be vigorously investigated. In fact, they have been already.

A basic principle of the temporary foreign worker program remains the same, and that is to fill acute short-term labour needs as a last and limited option when qualified Canadians are not available. In order to strengthen our economy and create long-term prosperity, we must ensure that employers cannot use the program and hire foreign workers unless they have no other choice.

Employment and Social Development Canada is working with Statistics Canada to develop two new surveys to collect reliable and comparable data on wages and job vacancies. This labour market information will help ensure that temporary foreign workers who enter Canada would only enter Canada when Canadians are not available. These steps, along with a number of other balanced reforms, will ensure that Canadians and their employers put Canadians first in the temporary foreign worker program.

As I said at the beginning, our government is focused. Our top priorities are job creation, economic growth and long-term prosperity. We are moving forward with measures to create jobs, such as the small business tax credit. We are also implementing a number of initiatives that specifically help and support families, such as the children's fitness tax credit, which the government is doubling and making refundable. These are important things to Canadian families and I am sure that all of my colleagues here in the House agree.

I look forward to the opposition supporting these initiatives that are good for families.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

5:05 p.m.

NDP

Hélène LeBlanc NDP LaSalle—Émard, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her speech.

However, despite the budgets the Conservative government has presented over the years, things have only gotten worse for women. Similarly, the new policies included in this budget will only make things worse for women.

Why does the minister not support policies that support women who are improving their economic situation by giving them access to day care services and allowing them to have well-paying jobs so that they can contribute to Canada's economy?

Why is the minister is telling us about a tax credit that does not help families in need? Can she tell us more about the measures in this budget? I do not see any measures in here that make things better for Canadian women.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Kellie Leitch Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am part of this government because this government supports well-paying jobs for all Canadians, including women.

Let us be clear. In economic action plan 2014, for the first time ever in Canadian history, unlike what an NDP government would do and unlike what the Liberals have done in the past across all provinces, Status of Women Canada announced support specifically for women entrepreneurs, making sure that they can start their own businesses, be mentored and championed, and have great opportunities.

We have also moved forward with an initiative called “women on boards”, challenging the private sector to get 30% of all their board members in the next five years to be women.

We are making important changes.

It is extremely important that members opposite get on board. Canada has an excellent track record. We support women overwhelmingly, whether it be the universal child care benefit, which makes sure that families can choose how they are going to provide care for their child so that mom can go to work and mom can participate in what she wants to do. More importantly, women entrepreneurs and women on boards are great initiatives I am delighted to support.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, it is worth noting that the budget implementation bill that we are debating today talks about making changes that will ultimately give tax breaks using EI benefits.

The Liberal proposal that we have offered to the House would generate tens of thousands of jobs in all regions of the country and is supported by many different stakeholders. There is absolutely no comparison to the plan that the Conservatives are going to put in place. The middle class and Canadians in general would benefit immensely under the Liberal plan compared to the Conservatives failed attempt at trying to create jobs.

The member is a minister and is close to the PMO. Why does the PMO not recognize a good thing when it is presented to the government? Our proposal would provide employers with EI premium breaks for new hires. This would create thousands of new jobs in every region of the country. I wonder if she could comment on that.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Kellie Leitch Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON

Mr. Speaker, first, this government has created 1.1 million net new jobs since the downturn of the recession. The Liberal Party does not support that job creation plan.

Second, I want to be clear on EI. Our new small business tax credit would help create jobs. It would infuse into small businesses across the country the opportunity to hire more Canadians. It would be a 15% decrease in payroll tax. That means, as I mentioned before, people in my riding such as Rebecca at Clearview Tea and numerous others would be able to hire new people.

This is different than the Liberal approach or the EI boondoggle that we know about from the early 2000s, where the Liberals were taxing people out of having jobs available at all, let alone what their leader has said most recently with regard to tax increases. He would be happy to raise taxes, because, as he said, we might just have to do it. You know what? That would kill jobs. This government is about creating them and we are doing it every day.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

I believe the hon. member for Churchill is rising on a point of order.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

5:10 p.m.

NDP

Niki Ashton NDP Churchill, MB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, during the 80th time the government has brought in time allocation, to bring forward a motion addressing the fact that we are not having the time or due process to look at this bill carefully, the way it ought to be looked at.

I would like to seek unanimous consent to move the following motion.

I move that notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, that Bill C-43, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, be amended by removing the following clauses: a) clauses 102 to 142 related to the Industrial Design and Patent Acts; b) clauses 145 to 170 related to the proposed Canadian high Arctic research station act; c) clauses 172 and 173 related to changes to the provision of social assistance for refugees; d) clauses 186 to 190, related to the Investment Canada Act; e) clauses 191 to 210 related to the Telecommunications Act and Broadcasting Act and the charging of pay-to-pay fees; f) clauses 225 and 226 related to the employment insurance small business job credit; g) clauses 306 to 314 related to temporary foreign workers and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; h) clauses 376 and 377 related to the proposed extractive sector transparency measures act;

that the clauses mentioned in section a) of this motion do form Bill C-45; that Bill C-45 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology;

that the clauses mentioned in section b) of this motion do form Bill C-46; that Bill C-46 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology;

that the clauses mentioned in section c) of this motion do form Bill C-47; that Bill C-47 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities;

that the clauses mentioned in section d) of this motion do compose Bill C-48; that Bill C-48 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology;

that the clauses mentioned in section e) of this motion do compose Bill C-49; that Bill C-49 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology; that the clauses mentioned in section f) of this motion do compose Bill C-50;

that Bill C-50 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities;

that the clauses mentioned in section g) of this motion do compose Bill C-51; that Bill C-51 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration;

that the clauses mentioned in section h) of this motion do compose Bill C-52; that Bill C-52 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology;

that Bill C-43 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order; that Bill C-43 be reprinted as amended; and that the law clerk and parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.

That is why we are proposing this motion calling for real debate and a real examination of these issues that matter so much to Canadians.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

5:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.