Debates of April 3rd, 2014

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague's question.

Indeed, it is important for us to take a close look at tax havens and to implement appropriate measures. I do not agree with the government's approach to the FACTA agreement with the U.S. government. According to experts, this agreement could violate our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, among other things.

I agree with my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques that we should work harder with Canadian banks to develop an approach on tax havens. The overall capacity of our banks and their presence around the world should enable us to do more and to take more leadership on this issue. However, the Conservative government does nothing to address tax havens in its approach to FACTA.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are many complex aspects of this omnibus legislation. Certainly, even the title, FATCA, foreign accounts taxation and compliance agreement, is one of the most complex.

It certainly would, as the hon. member stated, affect people who have no idea whatsoever that they could be caught in this broad ambit of people who are considered U.S. persons, people like me who were born in the United States but have nothing to do with the United States, who in my case has never lived there as an adult, but purely as a Canadian citizen and renounced U.S. citizenship.

This could apply to me, or my daughter. Then the information is handed over to the IRS without our knowledge.

Now, I want to draw attention to the charter argument, specifically section 15 of the charter, which says “Every individual is equal before and under the law...”. As my hon. colleague mentioned, the leading constitutional law experts of Canada have said that this will violate the charter.

So, as with other legislation, it will get pushed through this place. As in the case of the Nadon appointment or with some of the mandatory minimum sentence laws that were passed, we have clear evidence that we are being asked, as parliamentarians, to push through a piece of legislation that would be offensive to our fundamental rights of equality under the law, under section 15. I ask for the member's comments.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this speaks to the challenge of these omnibus bills.

We were denied the opportunity at the appropriate committees to consider all aspects of these changes in a more thorough, methodical, and thoughtful way. There are legal and constitutional issues to consider.

Members of the justice committee, for instance, ought to have been more engaged on the changes to the Supreme Court Act in the last omnibus bill, but instead we ended up getting into an embarrassing fiasco around Justice Nadon's appointment. This was embarrassing not just for the Conservatives but our citizens as well.

There is some expertise at the finance committee studying FATCA, but there is also a need to work with other committees.

Parliament could be mobilized and engaged more thoroughly if we did not have these kinds of disparate measures lumped together in one budget omnibus bill.

I would agree with the hon. member.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that this bill does very little to help young Canadians find jobs. I am very concerned about the fact that if young Canadians struggle to find a job for a year or two during their youth, this will effect their earning potential and their ability to contribute to the country's economy for the rest of their lives. We see this happen to women who stay home while their children are young.

There will be a lifetime impact on earnings potential. If we do not do something now about all the young people who are still looking for jobs after the last recession, this sector of our economy, this cohort of young Canadians, will be hurt for the rest of their lives.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the question from my colleague from Kingston and the Islands. This bill does not do anything for young people and for middle-class families. The youth unemployment rate is higher than it was before the recession. We have lost 255,000 jobs for young people since the recession. This will have a terrible long-term effect on the economy.

According to TD Economics there is a $23 billion cost to the Canadian economy as a result of the scarring effect of young Canadians not getting a good start. This is leading to an unprecedented level of unpaid internships and growth in inequality of opportunity. Bill C-31 would do nothing to address the challenges faced by young Canadians or middle-class families.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Kings—Hants for mentioning demutualization and the impact it would have, especially on certain regions of Nova Scotia. However, the bill does not indicate exactly what this government's intentions are in terms of demutualization. The Canadian Association of Mutual Insurance Companies stated that these companies do not want the government to create a framework that would include incentives for demutualization.

I would like the hon. member to speak more about the potentially negative impact of demutualization, not just for certain regions, but for people who have invested in mutual companies, especially the members, because they are the ones who invest in them.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, clearly mutual companies are against demutualization. The government's intentions with this bill are not clear. We hope that when we discuss this bill in committee, we will get a better understanding of the direction the government wants to take. This is another case where, with omnibus bills, the government is making it difficult for us to do our jobs and assess bills responsibly.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-31, economic action plan 2014, no. 1.

I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Niagara West—Glanbrook.

As the bill's short title would indicate, this piece of legislation would implement some of the measures passed in economic action plan 2014.

I have noted through the years that my opposition colleagues take exception to the term “economic action plan”. They are welcome to. While they are concerned with titles and labels, we on this side of the House are concerned with action on jobs, long-term growth, and continued prosperity for all Canadians. We have focused on reducing taxes for all Canadians; lowering government debt; increasing competition in the Canadian marketplace; creating the best educated, most highly skilled, and flexible workforce in the world; and building the modern infrastructure that we need to compete abroad and enjoy living in livable communities at home.

These priorities were outlined in our first mandate in a document I would encourage all MPs to read. All Canadians would benefit from doing so. It is called “Advantage Canada”. It is available on the Department of Finance website. That document was written in better times, before the global recession. While times have changed, our priorities have not.

In the intervening years we have weathered the worst global economic downturn since the Great Depression, but we stuck to our priorities, the priorities that Canadians elected us to address. Our commitment to that course has paid dividends for Canada. In every way that Canadians pay taxes, whether sales tax, income tax, or customs and tariffs, this government has lowered them.

We are now poised to return to a surplus fiscal position. I cannot over-emphasize how important it is that we return to this balanced budget and reduce our long-term debt charges.

We have reduced unnecessary regulations. We have made progress in cutting red tape. We have concluded major free trade agreements. We have invested an unprecedented amount in our post-secondary institutions and the skilled trades. Right across this great country, Canadians have seen their local infrastructure renewed, from wastewater facilities to community centres. Locally, this has meant unprecedented investments in Wilfrid Laurier University, my alma mater, as well as the world-renowned University of Waterloo and Canada's top polytechnic institute, Conestoga College.

New computer science and engineering facilities provide students the best environment to learn. Many of these students will become graduates who want to start one of the high-tech businesses for which Waterloo region is so well known. When they do, they can take advantage of the federally supported new Communitech Hub, which offers the latest technologies for their use as experts in building high-tech businesses.

When we talk about high-tech businesses, what we will build is beyond our imagination. Quantum computing and nanotechnology are just two of the bleeding-edge fields now being pursued thanks to significant support from this government. When I say it is beyond our ability to imagine, I clearly remember, when I was a school board trustee back in 1978, that the computer housed in the school board offices was huge. It occupied almost a full room. Today we can compute far more than that on these little devices we hold in our hands, which each one of us in the House is privileged to use. Not only will those kinds of technology advancements from 1978 increase again, but they may also possibly double or triple in quantity.

Community centres from St. Clements to Kitchener have been built or renovated. Highway 8, our connection to Highway 401, has had its capacity increased to handle the increased volume that comes with our region's explosive growth.

We have done all of this during the worst times the world has seen since World War II, while reducing taxes for Canadians, and without cutting support for health care or education like the previous government did.

Canada has outperformed every other G7 country in job creation thanks to this government's commitment to long-term prosperity, as identified in the five priorities I listed earlier. Canadians have also experienced the strongest real per capita growth in the G7.

As chair of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, I am especially proud of the key investments our government has made to protect and preserve our natural habitats. This government has invested over $17 billion in clean transportation initiatives, renewable fuels, clean air, clean energy, energy efficiency, and green infrastructure. This bill would build on that legacy, making it easier and more affordable for Canadians to donate ecologically sensitive lands for preservation.

As I mentioned earlier, this budget would put us within a hair's breadth of a return to surplus. In our party, this is important. The leader of the third party claimed that budgets will simply balance themselves. While Canadians of a certain generation will remember that Pierre Trudeau had a similarly cavalier attitude toward budgets, many more Canadians will remember the painful actions it took to clean up the mess that Trudeau left. The truth is that it took decades for Canada to dig itself out of the hole that Trudeau left. If budgets balance themselves, why is the United States unable to do so; why is the Wynne government in my home province of Ontario unable to balance its books? Deficits and debts out of control, that is Pierre Trudeau's fiscal legacy.

Now, the leader of the third party wants to bring us back to that. We on this side of the House are preparing for a brighter future, not a return to the dark days of deficits and debts spiralling out of control. Not only were they spiralling out of control, but they were also followed by very drastic cuts to health care and education, which many people in this room and many, especially in Ontario, will still remember with a great deal of pain.

On this side of the House, and among a few members on that side—not today but usually—we believe in fiscal discipline. A balanced budget allows us to spend more of the tax dollars that we collect to serve Canadians, and means less for the bankers and bondholders who fund that debt. When the government borrows less, interest rates drop for Canadians who are seeking to borrow for a home or a car, and for provincial governments like my own that seem addicted to spending the money they do not have. That is our vision. Unlike the third party, we will not mortgage our children's and grandchildren's future in a vote-buying exercise.

We focus instead on the fundamentals. This act would make it easier for small businesses to grow and hire by reducing the amount of time and resources they must devote to administrivia, allowing them instead to focus on their business.

This act would make life a little easier for Canadians struggling with health issues, by making the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act more flexible for employees, and allowing compassionate care leave for employees with critically ill children.

As well, this act addresses an issue that has so infuriated Canadians of late. We have seen senators accused of serious irregularities being suspended by their peers. They have no staff, no offices, no responsibility, but they are still accumulating pensionable service. To average Canadians, the middle-class Canadians the third party struggles so hard to define, this does not reflect any reality they have ever experienced.

In my home of Waterloo Region, business people tell me that they cannot access the talent they need. This act would make it easier for Canadians to pursue a skilled trade by offering financial assistance to apprentices. These business people also tell me that the current system of training is broken, focused on filling seats and not on producing results. I was especially pleased when members of the Ontario government finally agreed to participate in the Canada jobs grant program.

We are focused on jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity. The budget this act would implement will move us further toward those goals. By every measure, under this government Canada's economy has outperformed the world.

I know that the members opposite are screaming from the rooftops that this budget is the end of the world. They have been sticking to that Chicken Little routine every budget since Canadians first gave us the responsibility of governing, but they have been wrong every year and are wrong again. They are again wrong this time, and the evidence is that our approach is working. I ask the members opposite, especially those who have served more than one term, to listen to themselves, review what they predicted about previous budgets, and then review what happened, to see how wrong they have been year after year. I do not have time to go into all of the evidence, but maybe during the questions I will.

Under this government, Canada has led the world. That may be an uncomfortable fact for the opposition members, but it is a fact they cannot deny.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the lecture that the hon. member has given us. Unfortunately, the Conservatives like to ignore what they are doing and especially what they are not doing.

Looking at budget 2013, we see that there were numerous tax increases, either because of the removal of the provincial tariff exemptions or because the government applied GST on many items, such as parking at hospitals. I would like to know where the hon. member actually was when the Conservatives decided to impose the GST on parking at hospitals, a measure that was so bad they have now chosen to remove it with budget 2014 and this BIA.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this gives me a chance to add some material that I did not have time to do earlier. It is important for all members of the House and all Canadians to realize that it is on this side of the House, in this government, that we are working to reduce the tax burden on Canadian families. In fact, the average Canadian family currently pays $3,400 less in taxes than it did in 2006 when we took office.

There are a number of other facts I would like to clear up because they were misinterpreted earlier. Over one million net new jobs have been created in Canada, and over 85% of those are full time and 80% are in the private sector.

I could go on, but I have to give someone else a chance.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Conservative colleague for his speech, which targeted the Liberal Party. I appreciated it a great deal, because we are working to oppose this government.

My Conservative colleague talked about the environment and some of the things the government is trying to do. Why did it not bring back the ecoENERGY retrofit homes program?

This was a program that encouraged people to make homes more energy efficient in order to save them money when living in their homes. It was for everyone, and also helped to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

It was really a win-win situation. It helped local businesses, saved energy, saved money, and reduced Canada's greenhouse gas footprint.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful that my colleague drew attention to the fact that I did target the Liberal government. In fact, it was the previous Liberal government that actually nudged me out of my complacency and to get involved in politics in the first place, because of some of the mismanagement I saw there.

Specifically, we have invested, since 2006, more than $17 billion in support of the environment.

The member references the ecoENERGY program. Well, all of us in the House knew it was a time-limited plan. When we established it, it was a time-limited plan. It was a Conservative plan. However, the funny thing is that these people voted against it when we implemented it and now are asking us why we are not continuing it.

Greenhouse gases in this country have decreased by 8% since 2005 during a time when the economy grew by over 8%. Under the so-called Kyoto accord, greenhouse gases did not go down like they were supposed to, but actually increased by 30%. So, on the environment, I am proud of the record of our government.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, specifically following up on the environment, I just want to say that the government recently announced $4.4 million of support, in partnership with the Nature Conservancy of Canada, for 743 hectares of land just outside of the Oliver-Osoyoos area in the South Okanagan Similkameen.

This is a major effort by the government to conserve, and I will quote Linda Hannah, B.C. regional vice-president of the Nature Conservancy of Canada, who says:

This is one of the most significant conservation projects we have undertaken here in B.C. This project will benefit not only the many rare species that rely on this habitat, but also the people who live in and visit this beautiful valley and want to see it remain ecologically vibrant.

Obviously, government has a role to make sure that these valuable lands are conserved, but the member mentioned in his speech that government can also get out of the way and encourage people to donate their own land. I would like him to comment on that.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for drawing attention to the parks. Under this government, we have increased the area of our national parks by 58%. The square-mileage of our parks has increased.

Regarding the donation of ecologically sensitive land, this is an important aspect. When people do have these prized possessions, many of which are like the lands Ducks Unlimited Canada is currently administering and creating, it is important that they be allowed to donate these without a huge tax burden.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to highlight several features of budget 2014. Each year we bring out a new budget with new particulars but with the same steady principles and long-term priorities. We have looked at our economic circumstances and listened to Canadians and we know that they support our government's continued efforts to secure jobs, economic growth, and long-term prosperity.

This government is proud to serve Canadians in both domestic and international affairs. On the domestic side, I would like to speak to specific job-creating and economic measures as well as our low-tax plan on the road to balance. Moving to international issues, I hope to address economic immigration, free trade agreements, and Canada's relationship with the United States.

Allow me to start with an issue that is near and dear to all Canadians: jobs. Our government knows that Canadians are willing to work hard to get ahead, but we recognize the gap between the demand for skilled work positions and our current graduates and trainees. We are taking action to address these challenges. We would encourage students to enter the skilled trades by making interest-free loans available for Red Seal apprentice programs. Apprentices would be able to get interest-free loans of up to $4,000 per technical training period.

Our government is committed to workers who have lost their jobs and those who need retraining. Economic action plan 2013 introduced the Canada job grant to address this very issue. The grant would go toward training Canadians for jobs in high-demand fields and will be fully implemented in fiscal year 2017. The plan is to invest $300 million in the new program from the existing $500 million labour market agreements with the provinces. Budget 2014 would continue this implementation process.

In addition to training Canadians for available jobs, we are making it easier for businesses to hire them. As a member of the Red Tape Reduction Commission, I am pleased to say that this government would now implement another one of its recommendations. We would cut the administrative burden on more than 50,000 employers by reducing the maximum number of required payments on account of source deductions.

Despite these and other measures, the Canadian economy will experience periodic labour force gaps. Companies can address these gaps with temporary foreign workers if there are no Canadians available to do the work. Our government sees the value of the foreign worker program and its ability to help businesses in need, but we strongly believe that Canadians should always get the first shot at available jobs. To that end, we would commit $11 million over two years and $3.5 million each year going forward in reforming the labour market opinion process.

In addition to training, cutting red tape, and filling labour gaps, our government continues the trend of keeping corporate taxes low. Low taxes encourage more start-ups and attract more international companies to move here. Our steady course on corporate taxes works nicely with our reduction in personal taxes, but I will speak more on that later. To supplement these direct measures, budget 2014 includes several less direct approaches that would encourage economic activity by creating a more conducive climate.

New inventions, ideas, and methods give Canada an economic edge over international competitors. Our government helps to foster these innovations and discoveries by funding research and development projects throughout the country. In 2014, we would continue the trend of increasing annual R and D funding, with the total proposed spending now at $1.6 billion over five years.

We all know that sometimes brilliant ideas come from surprising sources and that the Internet is the single greatest advance in knowledge sharing in generations. Getting more people online increases the chances of new ideas coming to the fore. Budget 2014 proposes to spend $305 million over five years to extend and enhance high-speed broadband access to roughly 280,000 households in rural and northern Canada.

Of course, information flowing online is not the only thing that needs to move in Canada. People and goods require quality roads and rails to navigate our vast country. We have set aside $53 billion for the building Canada plan. Among other things, this plan would fund transfers to provinces and municipalities and would accept applications for the building Canada fund. It would also renew the P3 Canada fund to find new ways for state and private actors to co-operate on projects. It would contribute to on-reserve infrastructure, and much more.

Canadians know that governments pay for these kinds of infrastructure projects through taxes. However, if taxes get too high, it can actually slow the economy down. With that in mind, since 2006, we have introduced over 160 tax-cutting measures. The average family of four's yearly taxes are now around $3,400 lower.

Building on that solid record, budget 2014 includes many individual cuts. For example, we propose increasing the GST exemption measures, such as exempting training in coping tactics for people with disorders and disabilities. One of my personal favourites, due to the exciting technology element, is the exemption for eyewear specifically designed to electronically enhance the vision of people with impairments. Along with a host of other cuts, these measures would continue to make life just that much easier for Canadians.

Governance is about trade-offs, such as tax relief versus deficit elimination. Our government is doing both, which brings me to my personal favourite part of budget 2014: staying on track to balanced books and surplus.

Canadians trust our government to protect the nation's finances, to tax wisely, to rein in spending, and to respond to crises. Responding to the great recession of 2008 took a heavy toll on the budget. However, I can proudly say that the budget is on track to balance for the next fiscal year, and the sooner the better. As a small businessman, I can say first-hand that I understand the occasional need for borrowing, but I also understand the immense joy and relief of being in surplus again.

We are eliminating the deficit in two ways: by increasing revenue and by cutting spending. By fostering a healthy economic climate, our government has helped the GDP rise, which increases tax revenue without raising taxes. Unlike what the inexperienced Liberal leader thinks, budgets do not just balance themselves. Unlike what the reckless New Democrats may hope, a carbon tax on everything depresses GDP and lowers tax revenue.

The second way we are tackling the deficit is by making concerted efforts to reduce the size of government through attrition and modernization.

Growth in GDP and population brings me back to the matter of immigration I introduced when speaking of the LMOs earlier.

Along with most Canadians, our government believes that our immigration system should benefit Canada. As such, we have taken several important steps to reform the system, including proposing replacement of the immigrant investor program by the immigrant investor venture capital fund. The new program would ensure that this class of immigrants would make substantial contributions to our economy.

Immigration is just one way that we interact with the wider world. Canada also trades extensively, and trade is good for economic growth.

As I mentioned, we have managed to grow GDP without raising taxes; in fact, we have grown our GDP by cutting taxes over 160 times.

Increasing resource development and increasing trade are two of the best ways to increase our GDP. With the signing of the Canada-European trade agreement late last year and the Canada-Korea trade agreement a few weeks ago, Canada has secured new opportunities for growth.

Of course, trade requires goods and services to exchange. Canada is blessed with abundant natural resources, fertile soil, and the workforce needed to translate those assets into exports. I am particularly pleased to note that budget 2014 continues funding for agricultural development through the Growing Forward 2 framework. I also appreciate the proposed expansions to the types of livestock qualifying for tax deferral on sale by farmers dealing with drought or excessive rain.

Measures like these clearly show that our government is pursuing a sound strategy of diversifying our economy through developing our resources, opening new markets with new partners, and drawing closer to old friends and allies.

The great thing about trade is that it is not a zero sum game. Seeking out new trade opportunities in the Asia-Pacific zone and in Europe does not diminish our existing trade with the United States. The fact is that the United States is, and will continue to be, our closest ally and greatest trading partner. Our government is determined to increase that trade through improved cross-border infrastructure, such as the new international trade crossing between Windsor and Detroit. Budget 2014 proposes to provide $470 million over two years on a cash basis for the procurement and project delivery parts of the new bridge project. Since the Windsor-Detroit corridor handles 30% of Canada-US trade by truck, and since that trade is forecast to increase, expanding our infrastructure is an obvious choice.

Whether it is implementing direct job-related measures, cultivating a high-growth economic climate, cutting taxes while balancing the budget, or launching new trade initiatives, our government is taking solid steps for the good of the country. All Canadians can benefit from the sound governance budget 2014 demonstrates and from the prosperity to which it contributes. That is why I am looking forward to seeing the budget implemented.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the member who just spoke achieved something quite remarkable. We have before us a 350-page bill that will change, create and amend over 50 pieces of legislation. The member managed to speak for 10 minutes without even addressing one single aspect of the bill we are discussing in the House.

I know that the member's riding is close to the United States. One item in particular is important in this bill, and that is FATCA. Many people in his riding who are Canadian citizens and do not consider themselves American could be targeted by the U.S. revenue service, according to which they might owe thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars because the U.S. government sees them as American citizens. Those people's files could be transferred to the revenue service without their knowing it and could ultimately be subject to claims. Should that happen, those people will go to the member in question.

I would like to know what the member will tell the people targeted by the U.S. intelligence and revenue services about the fact that they might owe thousands of dollars that they do not think they owe to the U.S. government.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what I would like to point out is that as we look at this budget, we are looking at a balanced way of approaching things.

What I mentioned in my speech was the fact that it is not just one thing that is going to make a difference in this country. Just cutting corporate taxes or any other of a number of issues is not going to be what makes the difference. It is a combination of things that we do, including reducing spending, which I talked about in terms of government spending. I talked as well about reducing taxes, about immigration, about trade deals. There is a whole host of issues that we need to continue to work on in order to make our economy strong and to prosper.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from the other side today that the government is focused on growth and that on every measure it is outperforming other countries.

However, I would like the Conservatives to reconsider their statements. This week's issue of The Economist shows that Canada's economy is predicted to grow by just 2.3% in 2014. This is well behind the U.S., which is slated to grow at 2.8%, and Britain, at 2.9%, and Australia, at 2.6%.

I wonder if the member will revise these statements and admit that Canada's growth is beginning to lag behind our partners.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I have noticed in my role as chair of the foreign affairs committee is the number of individuals from other countries who approach me, whether they are ambassadors or the like, to talk about some of the amazing things that have been going on here in Canada.

If we look at what has happened since the economic downturn in 2008, we understand that many countries did not fare nearly as well and as a matter of fact were absolutely crippled by what happened during that downturn.

One of the things that is constantly raised to me by these ambassadors and other individuals is that there is more and more desire on the part of parliamentarians from other parts of the world to come to Canada to talk about the successes we have.

We continue to move forward. I know that if we look at the debt to GDP ratio, we see that ours remains the lowest in the G7 by quite a bit. I know we will continue to move forward as we implement our action plan over the coming years.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

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

I would like to thank our previous finance minister, the Hon. Jim Flaherty, for the excellent position he has put our country in, and for this budget. I wish my new colleague all the best as well.

I would like to ask my colleague a question. He talked about the debt to GDP ratio. I would like him to establish how that affects debt servicing payments and how returning to a balanced budget will affect debt-servicing payments and leave more of our taxpayers' money to provide services. Could the member expand on how positive that would be as well?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I will briefly remind members that the former finance minister is still a member of the House. We usually try to avoid using members' names.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, reducing the amount of the debt that we have to service frees up more dollars for other programs.

One of the things I did not get a chance to mention is that I am particularly proud of this government and finance minister for introducing the adoption expense tax credit. It is something that I believe is very important. It further recognizes the unique costs that families incur as they adopt children, and the kinds of one-time expenses they have. Of course, there will also be ongoing expenses, but this is particularly important.

As the member mentioned, as we continue to reduce the debt, it continues to free up dollars and we can look at additional programs and tax incentives.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-31. This is the fourth budget implementation bill that I have had the opportunity to discuss and debate in my tenure as deputy critic for finance and international trade for the official opposition.

A fairly obvious trend has emerged with these budget bills that I have debated. There is a pattern or a modus operandi, if you will.

I am going to do something that the government rarely does when debating the budget bill: I am going to discuss the budget bill. The last two speakers did not talk about it. In fact, they used the precious time of this House to talk about the budget and initiatives and also to pat themselves on the back, while ignoring the most negative aspects and this government's often poor record on the economy.

I was saying that there is a trend that has emerged with these budget implementation bills. I have noticed that the government routinely adheres to eight criteria when it introduces such bills.

The first concerns size. Budget bills are always mammoth affairs. As my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley mentioned, the English version of the bill is 350 pages long, and the French version is even longer, at 380 pages.

Not only is the size—380 pages—absolutely incredible, but what the bill covers is absolutely incredible because it talks about a lot of things.

Size is one of the criteria. There are 380 pages in the French version. In the past, some bills have been 700 to 800 pages in length. One budget bill even reached 920 pages, if I am not mistaken. That seems to be one of the government's criteria in its attempt to confuse and expedite a complex process. It wants to get through it as quickly as possible and with as much confusion as possible. However, the government should tread carefully in this process.

The government's second criterion is that a budget implementation bill should create, eliminate or amend at least 10 laws. In this case, more than 50 laws are amended or created with a single bill.

At the end of the process, the House will vote on a series of measures. We can give only a single yes or no, not including the votes that took place at the reading stages or during committee work, which I will touch on later.

The third criterion that the government seems to adhere to in drafting its budget bills is that the bill must include several elements that have nothing to do with the budget or fiscal matters. For example, this bill will amend the Judges Act and add four judges to the Quebec Superior Court and an extra one in Alberta. All of that is in a budget bill. Why does the government not want to introduce a bill to amend that act on its own, so that it can be studied independently? That is not the case here.

Using budget bills as a catch-all seems to be one of this government's tactics and a criterion for drafting such bills. People have spoken out against it. Many opposition speeches in the House quoted comments the Prime Minister made when he was in opposition and he strongly criticized the approach that he is now using on a regular basis.

The fourth criterion is that not only must the bill include several elements that have nothing to do with fiscal matters or the budget tabled, it must also create, not amend, laws that have nothing to do with the budget or fiscal issues. For example, the last three divisions of part 6 of the bill create three different laws, including one about the Champlain Bridge and one about the management of administrative tribunals. Those are extremely important elements that should, if we are talking about creating a law, be studied separately from a budget implementation bill.

The government seems to be favouring a fifth criterion. We have seen this a number of times in previous bills, and we are seeing it again here. The government thinks that a budget bill should put and concentrate new powers in the hands of various ministers. Last year, we saw bills that gave unprecedented powers to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, to the Minister of Finance, and to various ministers, in fact.

This time is no exception. Indeed, in the Hazardous Products Act amended by this bill, derivatives in securities will be amended by giving much more discretion to the ministers in question. Obviously, we can only engage in minimal discussion on the matter, because the bill is 350 pages long, and the government will push it through as quickly as possible. If the government stays on trend, which it usually does, it will start with a time allocation motion that is likely to come some time today or maybe tomorrow.

The government is using a sixth criterion. Actually, criteria 6, 7 and 8 are a lot alike. According to this sixth criterion, at least one legislative amendment should be in a bill like this one to restrict the rights of workers. This was systematic in previous bills and it is this time, too, since changes are being made to the Hazardous Products Act. The bill will amend features relating to occupational health and safety, as in previous bills that also restricted the rights of workers. These bills not only restrict the rights of workers, but they restrict the rights of immigrants as well.

Two specific clauses in this bill will affect them significantly by taking away rights and things that immigrants in Canada have access to. Those clauses will therefore limit access to social programs—or the restrictions may even be related to eligibility issues.

Finally, there is an eighth and final criterion. It seems that this budget bill, like previous budget bills, absolutely must contain at least one measure related to the government's so-called law and order agenda. Why is such a measure being included in a budget bill? The reason is that the government thinks it can get away with including this measure without providing any real reasons for doing so.

The government does not take the role of the House seriously. I do not think that it takes the essential democratic nature of the House seriously. It has never done so and continues to disregard it. As I mentioned, the Conservatives plan to move a time allocation motion. They have done so systematically with every other budget bill and with all of the legislation they introduce. The Conservatives seem to think that debate in the House is a trivial matter. Right now, they have a majority and they can do what they want. They can vote how they want and use their majority to pass the various bills that they, as a government, have deemed to be a priority. What is left for us as the opposition in the House? What remains of the role of the House if the government ignores the specific nature of the House of Commons when debating bills?

The specific role that MPs play, regardless of whether there is a minority or majority government, is to debate the essence of the government's bills and proposals. That is the real value of the House. We do not debate for the fun of it or to fill the pages of Hansard but to determine what the strengths and weaknesses of the government's proposals are. We do not debate bills just so that we, as MPs, can get informed but so that the government can learn about any inherent weaknesses in its bills. It is only natural that there will be problems, since we are all human. The people who propose and draft bills are human. Some factors may have been overlooked or may not have been considered.

It is our role as the official opposition and as MPs on the other side of the House to point these things out to the government, whether it be through debates in the House or through the discussions that take place at meetings of the Standing Committee on Finance, which is where budget implementation bills go to be examined.

The government is bypassing the entire process. At second reading, instead of allowing many members to participate in the debate, the government is limiting the number of speeches to 15 to 20 members, depending on the government's time allocation motion, or the gag order, as it is known in Quebec. The government is doing itself a disservice. With this approach, the government is hurting itself and the good governance of the country.

I still do not understand why it systematically acts in this way. Since it was elected in 2011, the government has imposed some 60 gag orders during the study of various bills. Why? What is the danger? We can debate those bills and find shortcomings, whether at second reading, at report stage or at third reading. This is an opportunity to rectify the situation and to prevent the government from doing itself a disservice.

The latest problems facing the government in its implementation of the provisions of the budget implementation bill are indicative of the weak position in which the government puts itself.

This budget implementation bill contains a major correction to a measure that we had denounced at the time and brought to the government's attention. Why did budget 2013 have to impose the GST on the parking revenue of hospitals? Hospitals were excluded from that measure. In 2013, when the government brought it in, we said that it was a mistake.

The government should not try to tax hospitals, since they play a specific role and parking is a source of revenue for them, but certainly not a source of profit. However, the government turned a deaf ear and decided to impose the GST on the parking revenue of hospitals. Then the Conservatives realized that we were right and they were wrong. Budget 2014 and this bill are reversing that measure. They once again exempt hospitals from GST on their parking revenue.

Not only are the Conservatives backtracking after ignoring the opposition's recommendations, but they are also trying to hide their mistake, claiming that this is a new tax cut. However, this is a tax that they themselves imposed.

Let us be honest and recognize that no party in the House has a monopoly on truth; no party can claim never to have made a mistake. Let us recognize that we should work together to improve bills. We can disagree on the government's agenda for the economy. We have made no secret of that; we talk about it and debate it all the time. However, when it comes to implementing specific measures that affect all Canadians, we should take our role much more seriously.

I would like to give another example of something that happened in budget 2013 and subsequent implementation bills to show that the government does not learn from its mistakes. My colleague mentioned this, and it is worth bringing up again. I am talking about the rules for appointing Quebec judges to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled on the appointment of Marc Nadon. The government tried to change the rules retroactively in a section of its last budget implementation bill, which we talked about. Over and over in the House and the Standing Committee on Finance, we told them that, first of all, it had nothing to do with the budget and should be studied separately, and second, that they could not change the rules retroactively, that they got themselves in trouble and that they should fix the problem without resorting to the budget or trying to pass retroactive legislation that would have no impact. We were right, and the Supreme Court agreed. We predicted the Supreme Court's reaction.

Are those the only elements? No. Other mistakes have happened because the government forces us to study such huge, complicated bills so quickly. Last year, the government passed a measure to eliminate an exemption for credit unions and caisses populaires.

This involved a lower tax rate for not-for-profit credit unions, which were benefiting from a special tax exemption. Although they were being taxed at 11%, the government wanted to tax them at the overall corporate tax rate, 15%. However, the bill and the wording of the amendment were so botched that in the end, the government did not take certain details into account that would have brought the tax rate for these credit unions and caisses populaires not to 15%, but to 28%. They would have paid 13% more than chartered banks whose primary objective is to make a profit and pay dividends to their investors and shareholders.

That was the result of a process that completely ignores the role of the House and our role as parliamentarians, MPs and representatives of our constituents. We must act in their best interest, always taking into account the common good and all the consequences our actions can have for laws and regulations.

I will take the few minutes I have left to talk about a final point that, I think, demonstrates this government's blatant disregard for the process. We often hear about a democratic process. The government should adopt a process of good governance specifically with respect to budget bills. I would like to talk about how these issues are dealt with in committee.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on Finance. When we have to conduct certain important studies, we take our time in order to do them properly. That committee is currently examining the highly problematic issue of youth employment. We will be dedicating 10 committee meetings to it. Last year, we dedicated 12 committee meetings to the issue of tax credits for charitable organizations, to determine whether we could improve the process and enhance Canadians' contributions to charitable organizations.

When a bill of 350, 400 or 500 pages that amends 40, 50 or 60 laws comes to the Standing Committee on Finance, we may have four or five meetings at most, including meetings with the people responsible and with government representatives. Four or five meetings to discuss complex issues, such as FACTA, which could violate the privacy of thousands—if not tens of thousands—of Canadians who could be considered by the U.S. government as American citizens who owe taxes. These people could have their personal file handed over to the U.S. government without their knowledge, and they could end up owing a considerable amount of money, even though they no longer consider themselves to be American, even though they were in the past.

This issue alone should take at least four, five or six meetings. We spent six to eight meetings discussing tax havens, and FACTA, which I just mentioned, was a key part of the debate we had at the Standing Committee on Finance. However, this will be just one of many dozens and dozens of issues we will have to discuss in that committee.

The very first time the government introduced an omnibus bill, we called on the government to separate the bill into parts so that the parts could be discussed in the relevant committees. The government separated the bill, but it sent the parts to the committees—such as the immigration, public safety or justice committees—for one meeting. These committees do not even have the right to propose amendments that could then go back to the Standing Committee on Finance.

This made the whole process a farce, and the budget implementation bill, regardless of what this government says, is also a farce. I urge the government to take these issues seriously, not only for the House, but also for all Canadians, whom we represent. they have the right to a competent and transparent government. The government has always claimed to be that kind of government, so it should demonstrate that right now by separating this budget into different parts to ensure that it can be carefully studied by the committees responsible for these issues.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for his speech. I always find him to be a very reasonable person, so I was quite happy to hear his views as the deputy critic for finance for the official opposition.

My question is very specific. He mentioned some of his concerns regarding the regulation, particularly to this budget implementation act, of derivatives. Derivatives are very complex formulas or algorithms that are used to calculate, particularly in the banking industry. Canada's banks are some of the world's most secure and obviously we want to keep them secure.

He said that he had specific criticism of it. What specific criticism would he have of the proposals in this budget implementation act and, if he has time, what would he give as an alternative proposition?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for his question, which was actually very pertinent. The issue of derivatives is a very complex one. We have seen, among other things, the role played by derivatives, especially non-bank asset-backed commercial paper, in the 2008-09 financial crisis, not just in North America but around the world. Derivatives should therefore be studied carefully.

I am not criticizing the regulations which, although not perfect, were more stringent in Canada than in many other countries. Such organizations as the Caisse de dépôt et de placement du Québec were affected rather negatively, along with many others, by the abuse of toxic derivatives they purchased.

My objection or my concern about this budget implementation bill as it pertains to derivatives is that it gives the Minister of Finance the power to make regulations for derivatives. With something like this, we must be able to see the consequences of this concentration of power, which permanently takes away the power of Parliament to act.

This is an important issue and it should require a specific study. Unfortunately, it will be studied along with all the measures in this budget bill.