House of Commons Hansard #101 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.

Topics

FinancesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. It is a very broad but also very technical question.

I have a problem with the targets, but let us look at the overall situation. Are the Conservatives or the Liberals interested in dealing with this problem? Yesterday evening, there was a very clear vote on an NDP motion to discuss the Conservatives' proposal to divide Canadian families into two categories, the rich and the poor. We do not think that is a good idea, given the inequality that already exists in Canada. The Conservatives voted against our motion or against the idea of equality, of a fair and equitable program.

In the end, the Liberals voted with us. That was a very good development. The content of the motion clearly shows that inequality has grown substantially during the 35 years of Liberal and Conservative leadership. It is really wonderful that the Liberals are finally admitting that the problem of inequality mainly stems from Liberal government policies. That is the reality. Yesterday evening's vote made that very clear.

I am glad that my Liberal colleagues came to the point of voting with the NDP motion last night, which said that the income-splitting scheme will increase inequality among Canadian families and that the haves will get more and the have-nots less. The motion also stated the central fact, which is that over the last 35 years, inequality has grown dramatically under successive Liberal and Conservative governments.

The proof of the pudding, for my Liberal friends in particular, will be to actually have policies that do something about it. It will be to have policies that reverse the inequality and the income gap and allow for the possibility of people prospering, which is the opportunity gap that we so often talk about.

That is something that needs to be real. We do not just need a vote on one night in the House of Commons; it needs to be real for all parties in this place if we truly want to stand up for Canadians.

FinancesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:35 p.m.

NDP

Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the topic at hand, especially since addressing poverty is one of the ways we have identified for helping Canadians.

The member spoke about income splitting. I have considered this situation. Clearly, there are major discrepancies between the people who will receive more money and those who will receive less.

Could an amendment be made so that the income tax refund would at least be issued to the member of the couple who earns less?

FinancesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:35 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting question.

Perhaps there is a way to improve the program or reduce its negative effects. That could be a possibility, but I do not know. There are many other ideas out there now about how to help Canadian families. A little extra money could be added to help families who currently have a lot of difficulty just meeting their basic needs. That is a possibility.

The facts are not important to the Conservatives. They are always playing politics. That is often the problem with a government that does not like facts, particularly facts that go against its policies and promises. We will see. We certainly have a lot of ideas about how to help Canadian families.

FinancesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:35 p.m.

NDP

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley and finance critic for his very interesting speech.

This debate is very relevant as it comes right after yesterday's debate on the opposition motion on income splitting. Unfortunately, the government overwhelmingly rejected the motion, despite the various opinions they heard and those we heard in the Standing Committee on Finance when we discussed this issue.

We had a number of debates following the motion moved by my colleague from Kings—Hants. However, he himself said he wanted to find common ground among the different parties. After the four meetings we had in committee, it was clear that we had a different vision of income inequality. When we do not have the same perception of the extent and origin of the problem, then it is rather difficult to find common solutions.

The opposition did its homework on this issue that affects all Canadians. This should not become a political issue; instead, it should be studied for the good of Canadians.

In committee, many witnesses, most of whom were invited by the Conservatives, denied the fact that income inequality constituted a structural problem, whether in terms of redistribution through the tax system or in terms of job opportunities. A number of those witnesses, who had been invited by the Conservative members of the committee, suggested that things were relatively normal and that this had more to do with an intergenerational inequality.

In other words, we expect young people to have much lower incomes than people with 25, 30, or 35 years in the workforce. A person in debt or with a very low income early on in their career can expect to move up the ladder and one day obtain a senior position.

That is true, but that is true in every society. That does not explain why income inequality, as measured by the Gini index or other factors that compare different deciles or quintiles of income, is much higher in Canada than in many other industrialized countries.

That troubles us and that is why we are having this debate. This inequality is a key concern of Canadians and Quebeckers because it seems to be present in the structure of Canada's social fabric. It arose from the various measures that the various federal governments have adopted over the past few years.

Provincial governments may also share some responsibility, as a result of some of the decisions they have made. However, they are often not involved in decisions regarding transfers from the federal government, in particular social and health transfers.

Health care costs can sometimes take up 40%, 45% or even 50% of a province's budget. These issues are therefore extremely important to them, and that explains why this inequality has increased in all of this country's provinces.

I mentioned that, in the beginning, members of the Standing Committee on Finance had different views on the issue of income inequality. This meant that we all had different views on what solutions were necessary.

The report contains some recommendations that the entire committee agreed upon, such as improvements to the employment assistance program, which helps low-income workers. We recognize that this is a progressive measure on the part of the Conservative government and that it helps the Canadians who need it most.

However, the Conservatives proposed other measures we do not think belong in a report on income inequality.

The measures could have an impact, but it would be so indirect and remote in this case that it would have little effect. At the end of the day, they would only promote and advance the Conservatives' agenda on certain issues.

In my question to the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley I mentioned that the federal government was still working with the provinces and territories to create a single securities commission. This is an important economic issue. It comes up in debate quite often. The government is trying to reach an agreement with the provinces, and the Supreme Court has become involved. This is an important issue for financial markets and the business world in general, but it will have little effect on income inequality.

I think that we need to take a closer look at employment and education. The report has some good recommendations for education. All of the committee members agreed and voted in favour of these recommendations.

The same goes for several measures for the labour market that removed barriers preventing many Canadians from accessing well-paying jobs and fulfilling their career aspirations.

However, the report contains other elements that clearly demonstrate the differences between the Conservatives' approach and that of the NDP, the official opposition. Take, for example, the final recommendation concerning the federal government's strong commitment to keep taxes low and to not impose punishing, higher personal or business tax rates that would harm economic growth for all Canadians

Taxes can be kept as low as possible but, from a tax perspective, this debate is about far more than simply keeping taxes low. There are problems with fairness in the tax system. We did not address that at committee stage. There is nothing in the recommendations about the tax expenditures that currently total more than $230 billion. That includes various tax credits and deductions that, at the end of the day, represent a loss for the Canadian treasury and that could be used to redistribute wealth. These programs need to be evaluated so we can see whether they are meeting their objectives.

Are all of these tax credits, whether for businesses or individuals—including targeted credits for arts or sports—adequately serving their function?

I think we need to evaluate that.

In our report, we recommended that the Canadian government implement a thorough review of Canada’s tax and transfer system to determine which changes to the regime have resulted in the greatest increases in income inequality.

That means that we, on this side of the House, recognize that all of the changes that have been made to the tax system—and we can go as far back as the 1980s, to the reforms presented by the finance minister at the time, Michael Wilson—have contributed to a growing inequality. In fact, that is when we first saw an increase in poverty, which was exacerbated by the federal measures that were implemented to revamp social programs under the Liberal government in the mid-1990s.

Since then, many tax measures have only served to increase, not decrease, income inequality. In light of that, I think the issue merits further debate. Honestly though, I do not think that the Conservative government wants to debate it, which is why I would like to move the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges:

That the debate be now adjourned.

FinancesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

FinancesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

FinancesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

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

FinancesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

FinancesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

All those opposed will please say nay.

FinancesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

FinancesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #202

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I declare the motion carried.

Justice and Human RightsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:25 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

moved:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that, during its consideration of Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, the Committee be granted the power to divide the Bill into two bills: the first consisting of clauses 2 to 7 and 27, related to cyberbullying; and the second bill containing all the other provisions of Bill C-13 related to other online activity.

Justice and Human RightsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:25 p.m.

York—Simcoe Ontario

Conservative

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The motion of instruction in the name of the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster, just read to the House is out of order and cannot be put to the House. It is obviously part of an ongoing effort by the NDP, in this case, to obstruct and resist the Board of Internal Economy meeting under way. However, whatever the motives may be, the fact is this.

On Monday, May 26, the hon. member for Gatineau moved a motion of instruction, which was adjourned, and pursuant to Standing Order 66 (1), now sits on the order paper as Government Motion No. 11.

For the Chair's ease of reference, let me read the motion. It states:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that, during its consideration of Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, the Committee be granted the power to divide the Bill into two bills: the first consisting of clauses 2 to 7 and 27, related to cyberbullying; and the second bill containing all the other provisions of Bill C-13.

Now let me read the motion of the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster. It states:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that, during its consideration of Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, the Committee be granted the power to divide the Bill into two bills: the first consisting of clauses 2 to 7 and 27, related to cyberbullying; and the second bill containing all the other provisions of Bill C-13 related to other online activity.

Mr. Speaker, the difference is these five words, which were added at the end of today's motion, “related to other online activity”.

What is indisputable is that the substantive effect of these two motions is identical. Having established that these motions are for all intents and purposes identical, let me turn to page 560 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, which discusses the rule of anticipation. It states:

The moving of a motion was formerly subject to the ancient “rule of anticipation” which is no longer strictly observed. According to this rule, which applied to other proceedings as well as to motions, a motion could not anticipate a matter which was standing on the Order Paper for further discussion, whether as a bill or a motion, and which was contained in a more effective form of proceeding (for example, a bill or any other Order of the Day is more effective than a motion, which in turn has priority over an amendment, which in turn is more effective than a written or oral question). If such a motion were allowed, it could indeed forestall or block a decision from being taken on the matter already on the Order Paper.

Picking up at a later paragraph, I again quote:

The rule is dependent on the principle which forbids the same question from being decided twice within the same session.

That is a quite well-established principle we are all familiar with.

It continues:

It does not apply, however, to similar or identical motions or bills which appear on the Notice Paper prior to debate. The rule of anticipation becomes operative only when one of two similar motions on the Order Paper is actually proceeded with.

That is to say at this very moment.

Continuing on with the passage, it states:

For example, two bills similar in substance will be allowed to stand on the Order Paper

We have that, for example, I would note, with regard to Veterans Affairs. It continues:

but only one may be moved and disposed of. If the first bill is withdrawn (by unanimous consent, often after debate has started), the second may be proceeded with. If a decision is taken on the first bill, the other may not be proceeded with. A point of order regarding anticipation may be raised when the second motion is proposed from the Chair, if the first has already been proposed to the House and has become an Order of the Day.

That is exactly the present case, since the substantively identical motion of the hon. member for Gatineau is an order of the day, identified on the order paper as Government Motion No. 11.

As a result, the motion of the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster would offend the rule of anticipation. Therefore, I would submit that the motion of instruction you just read should not be proposed to the House, and the House should, in my respectful view, carry on with the remaining items of routine proceedings.

I of course note that I raised this immediately, at the moment the motion was read to the House, at the very earliest opportunity, the appropriate point in time to raise such a point of order.

Clearly, the House has already made this, as the rules say, an order of the day. It has already dealt with it. It is a duplication of that effort. As such, it is entirely out of order at this time.

Justice and Human RightsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:30 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Speaker, we almost applauded on this side, because we think the government House leader actually made our point.

The first point the government House leader made was that it is a different motion. He also referenced the fact that it is related to other online activity, as part of this motion that is being presented today, which does not configure at all in the other motion he was mentioning.

Second, and I am quoting from O'Brien, and the government House leader kind of glossed over this, it is important to read what O'Brien and Bosc also says:

...the ancient “rule of anticipation” which is no longer strictly observed.

The government House leader kind of glossed over this. It is from O'Brien and Bosc, which is really our procedural bible:

The moving of a motion was formerly subject to the ancient “rule of anticipation” which is no longer strictly observed.

We are not talking about the 17th century here. We are talking about 2014 in Canada.

The third point is probably the most conclusive. We have talked about the ancient process. The government House leader referenced something from the 17th or 18th century. I certainly appreciate his reference of historical fact, but it does not have relevance to our standing orders today.

The third point, again from O'Brien and Bosc:

While the rule of anticipation is part of the Standing Orders in the British House of Commons, it has never been so in the Canadian House of Commons. Furthermore, references to past attempts to apply this British rule to Canadian practice are inconclusive.

I certainly agree that if the government House leader was standing in the British House of Commons, he might be right, but he is standing in the Canadian House of Commons, it is 2014, and this motion is very much in order.

Justice and Human RightsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON

Mr. Speaker, if I could address the first issue on whether the two motions are the same, the words are entirely the same, except for the five added on at the end, which we as lawyers would call obiter—

Justice and Human RightsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:30 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

This is debate. You have already said that.

Justice and Human RightsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON

Yes, it is debate. I am debating the point of order. I am responding to the arguments that have been raised by the opposition House leader. I know he does not want—

Justice and Human RightsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Order. There are several members who are participating in the discussion without having been granted the floor. The Chair needs to hear these types of arguments so the Chair can make a decision that will serve the House well. The key to that is that I need to be able to hear them and not hear members who are not actually recognized by the Chair.

If members have things they want to say, I suggest they go outside into the lobby, and they can say whatever they want, but not in the Chamber.

The hon. government House leader is making a point that I would like to hear.

Justice and Human RightsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON

Mr. Speaker, the substance of both motions is identical. The substance is to divide the bill into two bills, the first consisting of clause 2 to 7 and 27, and the other bill containing all the rest of the provisions.

Regardless of how one describes the rest of the provisions, the consequence of the two motions is identical. Two separate bills, one which has clauses 2 to 7 and 27, and one which is the balance of the other clauses.

The words describing them, that they are different, is really of no consequence. The fact is, it is an identical motion in terms of what it is asking this House to do.

In terms of the reference to the British practice, the hon. member may not be familiar with the fact that in our rules, our processes, and our procedures, it is often the case that we have reference to the mother Parliament. It is indeed the parent of all our rules and all our followings. It is a common practice to follow those proceedings.

However, we are not simply doing that. We are actually going much farther than that, following no less an authority than O'Brien and Bosc, which says when the rule becomes operative in our House, and that is:

...only when one of two similar motions on the Order Paper is actually proceeded with.... if the first has already been proposed to the House and has become an Order of the Day.

That is exactly what has happened in this case. That is exactly why this motion is out of order.

Justice and Human RightsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:35 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Speaker, the government House leader just repeated the same argument. I will not take any more of your time.

It is very clear when we read O'Brien and Bosc that we are talking about an ancient rule that the government House leader is trying to reintroduce and something that in O'Brien and Bosc is very clearly part of the Standing Orders in another Parliament. It “has never been so”.

I am quoting O'Brien and Bosc. That is kind of an important reference.

...it has never been so in the Canadian House of Commons.

It is very clear that we are talking about a motion that introduces other elements. Quite frankly, it is very clear that it is in order, and the rule of anticipation, cited by the government House leader, and with due respect I certainly understand his historic model, is not relevant to the Canadian House of Commons. It is certainly not relevant to 2014.

Justice and Human RightsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will make one final submission in response to the historical reference because the hon. member, in making a motion for instruction, appears ignorant of the history of the motion of instruction and its use in the House. If I may read further from the legislative process in O'Brien and Bosc, at page 752, it reads as follows:

Motions of instruction derive from British practice during the second half of the 19th century.

It is funny that he seems to think that is irrelevant. That is the motion that he is seeking to make.

They were carried over into the practice of the Canadian House of Commons, although they have been rarely used.

As such, it being a British practice and being rarely used in this House, the very best authorities for it are the British. We are not relying merely on those, though. We are also relying on the text and words and principles and rules found in our own bible, so to speak, the green book, O'Brien and Bosc.

Justice and Human RightsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:35 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Speaker, the repetition of arguments I do not think is useful in this case. I would cite O'Brien and Bosc: “it has never been so in the Canadian House of Commons”.

Quite frankly, the government House leader is stretching, trying to find other elements, but the reality is that O'Brien and Bosc, which is our guide, talks about this ancient practice, the rule of anticipation, which is no longer strictly observed, and the rule of anticipation has never been part of the Canadian House of Commons Standing Orders.

I think it is pretty clear that this motion is very much in order.

Justice and Human RightsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I appreciate the points raised by both the government House leader and the opposition House leader. Upon examination of the section of O'Brien and Bosc, upon which both House leaders have relied extensively for their arguments, it seems to the Chair that the key concept is the question of whether or not the motions are substantially the same.

Upon examination of both motions on the notice paper, it does seem that the motions are substantially the same and that the principles cited by the government House leader as to the practice of the House are persuasive to the Chair. Accordingly, we will not be proceeding with the motion at this time.

We will now proceed with the rest of the items under routine proceedings.