Debates of April 3rd, 2014

Bill C-31—Time Allocation Motion

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians now have a government that has brought forward the largest infrastructure program in Canadian history. The infrastructure being implemented across this country will serve Canada well for decades and decades. Many years ago, it was not the role of the federal government to be as active in federal infrastructure spending. This is a very positive measure that we brought forward to help create jobs and grow our economy in the downturn. However, the opportunities in the future are going be immense.

In Montreal and other places, bridges are being constructed. We need those pieces of infrastructure to move people and produce. More and more, Canadians are realizing that we need access to other markets. The hon. member talked about the toll for the Champlain Bridge. Many of the programs we are doing are called P3 programs. Part of the commitment for that bridge was that it would be a toll bridge, and we have others like it across the country. If there were to be the bridge, there would be a toll.

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

Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that the hon. government House leader decided to shut down debate. He made a speech and then, well I cannot remark on where he might be, questions are being taken by the hon. parliamentary secretary.

The hon. government House leader had the gall to tell the House, on behalf of his constituents, that the government did not believe in big government. What is not “big government” about it asking the banks to root through the private information of Canadian citizens and turn that information, without their knowledge or consent, over to a foreign government? That is not just big government, that is big brother government. This measure deserves treatment in something other than an omnibus bill that has limited debate time.

I will not be able to speak a full 10 minutes because with time allocation, debate never comes around to the smaller parties. This is both an affront to democracy and a violation of the charter, as well as further abuse of our parliamentary system.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern of the member that I am answering questions. I believe it is an honour to stand in the House and promote the budget implementation act of 2014.

On this FATCA, without an agreement in place our financial institutions would still have had to comply with FATCA. That is the problem. It is not whether or not our financial institutions would have had to comply with the rule of law dealing with those American citizens who are abiding here in Canada. Every financial institution in Canada, except the very small ones, would have had to comply with the Americans, and if they did not, there would have been huge consequences to their being involved in the United States, to their activity in the United States. It would have required banks to report information to the IRS. Canadian banks would have been reporting to the IRS.

The agreement we were able to negotiate says that those financial institutions can disclose information on American citizens living in Canada and their finances to the Canada Revenue Agency, which is then responsible for moving the information forward.

If that had not happened, banks would have had to deny basic banking services to clients. That is one of the major concerns that banks had, that they would in effect have to say no to American citizens or those who may be dual citizens, saying that they could not do business in Canada.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, closure prevents us from discussing the financial insecurity of Canadian families.

We will not be able to discuss credit card interest rates, which destroy the financial capacity of Canadian households.

We will not be able to discuss “pay to pay", the practice whereby companies charge additional fees to people who pay by Canada Post. Despite this government's throne speech, nothing is being done about this.

Lastly, as for pensions, it is the same story about the grasshopper and the ant. I would like someone to explain to me how not saving now will give us an income in the winter of our lives.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I had a hard time following the member's question initially because he was speaking about the dire circumstances of Canadians as a result of interest rates being too low. Does that mean that the New Democratic Party is proposing that interest rates dramatically increase? Does it believe that a big increase in interest rates would help to drive the economy? Does it believe that high interest rates are going to encourage small and medium-size businesses to hire more employees? Does it believe that high interest rates would build our economy?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin on a point of order.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, he is stating the very opposite of what I said. The answer must reflect the question. I was speaking about high credit card interest rates—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

That is not a point of order, but a matter of debate.

The hon. minister of state.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the other concern he had was in regard to retirement. I wish I had more time. We have three very strong pillars to retirement in Canada: the OAS, GIS, and CPP. We also have the pillar of all the other incentives for Canadians that our government has brought forward, incentives like the pooled registered pension plan and the tax-free savings account. All of these were brought in because we are focused on the retirement security of Canadian seniors. When I travelled the country during the prebudget consultations and after the budget rollout, Canadians thanked us for the measures the government had brought forward. We are looking out for the—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board.

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

Mr. Speaker, any economist would tell us that if we want to see manufacturers export more, we need to have a strong system of both intellectual property and international trade agreements. Our government has had a very strong record of taking action to strengthen Canada's intellectual property system. Trademarks help protect a company's brand and reputation, and ensures that consumers have confidence that the products they buy are legitimate.

The existing framework for protecting intellectual property is not currently aligned with international practices, creating unnecessary costs for businesses. International treaties, like the Madrid protocol, the Singapore treaty, and the Nice classification, recognize trademarks and make it easier for companies to do business. I know that under these treaties Canadian companies could benefit from promoting their brand, both at home and abroad.

Could the Minister of State for Finance please tell the House what the government is doing to assist Canadian businesses with regard to trademarks and branding?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, our government is known for reducing red tape. We brought forward commissions that would help reduce red tape. We are focused on what we can do to help small, medium, and all businesses succeed. That means reduced red tape. That is part of our effort to protect the interests of the Canadian workforce. That is what we are here to do.

I am pleased to tell the member that the legislation we are here to debate today, economic action plan 2014 act no. 1, would implement all three of those international trademark treaties. This would reduce red tape for Canadian businesses and support our trade agenda. These measures would aid in streamlining the granting and protection of intellectual property rights in Canada and around the world. Harmonizing Canada's intellectual property regime would help Canadian businesses access new markets, lower costs, and draw foreign investment to Canada, while reducing the regulatory burden and red tape.

Our trade minister, our agriculture minister, and many other ministers and members of Parliament have travelled the world trying to gain access to new markets. One of the stumbling blocks has been that we have not been signatories to some of the treaties, like the Madrid one and others. This would help implement that.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I go to questions and comments, I want to remind all hon. members that you ought to stand when questions and comments are called, not just stand for an extended period hoping to be recognized many minutes before there is an opportunity.

The hon. member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, considering that this is the 61st gag order that the government has imposed since winning the 2011 election, it is clear that the government does not care about democracy. It wants to once again limit the debate on a fundamental issue, especially considering that the number of proposed amendments in this omnibus bill means that we will not have the time to properly debate them, which would have allowed us to really get to the heart of the matter. There are so many issues in this bill, issues that need a much more thorough debate. Consider, for example, the creation of a national securities commission, the Champlain Bridge and apprenticeship grants. There are many other potentially volatile areas that could really affect the economy. We are also wondering why the bill includes funding for the automotive industry in Ontario. There is also funding for fishers in Newfoundland, but there is no compensation for Quebec's cheese and dairy producers following the free trade agreement with the European Union. For the Quebec economy, there are many things that are not found in this bill, and we will not have time to debate it because, once again, the government is limiting the time, which is a complete affront to democracy.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not certain exactly what the question was. I can tell the hon. member that the Canada-European Union trade agreement is an agreement that would give us access to 500 million people. It is going to be a huge benefit to Canada's economy. Certainly when we meet with manufacturers, with the agricultural industry, and with many others, they understand the importance of that free trade agreement, and all the free trade agreements we have, to our country.

Canada leads the G7 with more than one million jobs created since the depth of the global economic recession, but we are not immune from the challenges from beyond our borders. We cannot afford to become complacent. For that reason, we stepped forward with free trade agreements, as the hon. member mentioned here today. We have brought forward agreements that will help employment in Canada and the economy in Canada. They will help all Canadians.

I would encourage the member to meet with Canadians in different sectors and find out about the importance. He mentioned dairy producers. It is going to be good for all of agriculture. It was specifically mentioned that there are certain measures in place to protect.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to the original purpose of this debate, which concerns why debate on this legislation should be limited. We are debating time allocation.

In this omnibus bill, there are corrections to mistakes in previous omnibus bills. It seems as if every omnibus bill has to correct every previous omnibus bill. All of these bills have had debate limited and have been pushed through faster than they really should have been. They have contained a lot of different material unrelated to the budget.

My question for the parliamentary secretary is this: if this is a pattern that each of these bills has to correct the previous one, why do we not just do it right for once? Why do we not just take our time and get it right?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians got it right in 2006. Canadians got it right in 2008. Canadians got it right in 2011 when they asked this government to be the government to shepherd or take the economy through a very difficult economic time. Canadians got it right.

Even as I travelled across this country, from one coast to the other, in the pre-budget consultation, we heard from industry, from moms and dads, from academics, and from manufacturers. We heard different groups come forward to say what they would like in the budget. They understood. They understood that this government was the government that can help build jobs, help create jobs, and help save jobs and that wanted to see the economy move ahead quickly.

Everything in the bill supports our low-tax plan for Canadians. It supports our low-tax plan for jobs and growth. What the opposition is not talking about today is that Canada's economy grew much more in January than members opposite ever expected it would or that the economists expected it would. That is what members want to stifle.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we know that since the depths of the recession, Canada has had the best job creation in the G7 under this government's leadership. Over one million net new jobs have been created since July 2009, overwhelmingly full-time, well-paying jobs in the private sector. Private sector employers across Canada say that the biggest challenge they are facing is a lack of skilled workers. This is particularly problematic in certain sectors and regions, where thousands of jobs are going unfilled, because not enough skilled workers are available to fill them.

Given this government's success in previous years in job creation and in connecting Canadians with available jobs, would the Minister of State (Finance) please tell this House about the measures in the bill that would contribute to this aspect of the economy?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank that member of Parliament for the very important and strong work he is doing, first, on the Ukraine file, as he was undoubtedly the most supportive in bringing that issue forward.

I also want to thank him for hosting me as we went across the country on a pre-budget consultation. He brought a group of businessmen and chambers together, and they, again, shared what they hoped would be in the budget.

In response to his question, I would like to highlight a couple of important initiatives found in this budget.

First, it would invest $11 million over two years and $3.5 million per year ongoing to strengthen the labour market opinion process. All of us understand the need there as we meet with constituents. This would help ensure that Canadians are given the first chance at available jobs.

We would also provide $14 million over two years and $4.7 million per year ongoing toward the successful implementation of an expression of interest economic immigration system. This, again, would help support Canada's labour market needs.

Budget 2014 is a budget that would equip apprentices registered in the Red Seal trades with access to interest-free loans of up to $4,000 per period of technical training.

Last, we would help reduce red tape. We want to see red tape cut for more than 50,000 employers by reducing the maximum number of required payments on account of source deductions.

There is much in this budget. Those are just a number of the points that would help with job creation and would help strengthen our economy.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.