Debates of May 14th, 2015

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is also from residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands, Salt Spring Island, Sidney, and Brentwood Bay, calling on the government to put in place a carbon price through the means of fee and dividend, where a fee is charged at the pollution source and the dividend is returned equally to every Canadian.

Canada Post

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of people in my riding in the Labrador West area who, unfortunately, are seeing cuts to their postal services.

The petitioners ask that Canada Post Corporation not downgrade its service and leave the community with reduced levels of postal service.

They are calling upon the Government of Canada to instruct Canada Post to maintain and improve postal services, and to cease any proposal to reduce hours and diminish service to the residents of Labrador West.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Bill C-59—Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures, not more than two further sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the bill;

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the second day allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67(1), there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite all hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places so that the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.

The hon. leader in the House for the official opposition.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is another sad day. This is the 96th time this government has invoked closure or time allocation in this Parliament. No other government has done that. Canada has never had a government that has abused time allocation and closure as much as this one has. This is a sign of arrogance and incompetence because many of the bills that the government has introduced in the House of Commons have been rejected by the courts. They reject the legislation because the government does not really double-check its bills as much as it needs to.

Sadly, this is the 96th time in this Parliament, which is the worst record of all time. It is three times worse than any other previous government for bringing in closure and time allocation.

The government is going to say that it is trying to do this for our veterans. We will recall that after years of neglect of our nation's veterans and years of just refusing, cutting back on services and treating our nation's veterans with disdain, the Conservatives finally introduced a bill that would help to improve the situation. That is Bill C-58, which has sat on the order paper all week. For days, the NDP has been standing up and asking for unanimous consent to get Bill C-58 for veterans into committee so that veterans can start getting the relief that is called for. Instead, the government is saying that it is going to make them wait even longer with Bill C-59.

The question is very simple. Why are the Conservatives playing so many games with veterans? Why do they not heed the message from Alberta and, instead of showing such arrogance and incompetence, why do they not work with the opposition parties so that they can get good legislation that is not rejected by the courts?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-59 is in line with our government's plan for low taxes and a balanced budget to promote employment, growth and security. The budget implementation bill contains measures that were announced in economic action plan 2015. Many of these measures are tax-related, but they all achieve one main goal: Canada's long-term prosperity.

It is common practice, even for Liberal governments, to include various measures in a budget. That is nothing new or out of the ordinary.

As to the question about veterans, our Conservative government places the highest priority on making sure that veterans and their families have the support and the services that they need when they need them. Our government made significant progress in key areas, such as long-term financial security, increased family support and removing barriers of eligibility for certain financial benefits.

Canadian Armed Forces veterans who are moderately to seriously disabled as a result of their service will soon have additional benefits after age 65 and new money to support family caregivers. In addition, those from the Canadian reserve forces will receive fair financial benefits from VAC.

These new initiatives are evidence of our government's commitment to ensuring that Canadian veterans and their families are treated with care, compassion and respect.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, once again, we have time allocation on the government's financial piece of legislation, which I would argue is unfair. The Minister of Finance needs to recognize the reality. His taxation policies would be to the advantage of Canada's wealthiest, and he is asking Canada's middle class to pay for that tax giveaway.

This is not a budget that would deal with or that has any concept of what it really takes to have economic and job growth. There is a lot of contrast. This is why we need to have a thorough debate on this budget.

Let me give an example. The contrast of the Liberal Party would propose to make the tax system fairer and cut the middle-class tax rate by 7%. That would be a $3-billion tax cut for those who need it the most. The Liberal plan would also provide one bigger, fair, tax-free monthly cheque to help families with the high cost of raising their kids.

My question for the Minister of Finance is why does he not recognize how unfair his tax proposals are to the middle class and those who are aspiring to become a part of Canada's middle class? Why does he not instead adopt good, solid, fair taxation policies and stimulate Canada's economy?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud that our budget will provide benefits primarily to low-income families. We will do that in a number of ways.

The family benefit program, of course, will overwhelmingly benefit low- and middle-income Canadians, with two-thirds of the benefits going to them, and 25% to families earning less than $30,000.

The tax-free savings account is a wonderful way for middle-class and lower-income Canadians to save for their kids' education and for their retirement. That is why 11 million Canadians have a TFSA, with the vast majority low- and middle-income earners, and 60% of those who contribute the maximum earn less than $60,000 a year. Therefore, it is amazing that the NDP and the Liberals would take away the TFSA increases, robbing the middle class and seniors of an extra opportunity to save.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Before we proceed, I have allowed a little flexibility on the first two questions, but from now on I will be holding all members, in both questions and responses, to one minute.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Minister of Finance that we are in the House of Commons of the Parliament of Canada. We are not in front of the media or in the middle of an election campaign. We are here to discuss a parliamentary procedure. We are MPs who are accountable to their constituents, but all the minister is doing is giving speeches that have already been given.

We are talking about the government's 96th time allocation motion, which will prevent members of the House from debating some of the complex issues in this bill.

The government does not seem to care about the repercussions of the decisions it is making.

The Conservatives keep doubling down. However, when they are doubling down constantly, in the end, we end up losing, and this is what is going to happen to the current Conservative government.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this bill would be a benefit to all Canadians. This bill will be debated in this House, and there will be plenty of opportunity to do that.

We are very pleased about our commitment to introduce many tax measures that would benefit Canadians, such as our commitment to introducing balanced budget legislation, to strengthening the Canadian Labour Code, to providing benefits to families and to providing tax relief to small businesses that are the basic generator of employment. Some 50% of employment is created by small businesses.

The previous Liberal government's budget bill contained dozens of different pieces of legislation, and if I may say, it is not the committee's study that the opposition members really care about; they want to stop the necessary and vital economic reforms in the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see the Minister of Finance in the House of Commons answering questions. In the past, this was something that ministers of finance did on a regular basis, because they were accountable to Parliament. They felt that participating in question period and responding to questions was absolutely part of their job. We hope that this participation in the House of Commons and accountability to Parliament becomes more of a regular occurrence for the current minister, who has only participated in seven question periods in 2015.

My question to the minister is on the budget implementation act, which contains Nixonian changes to ATIP legislation to try to cover up the information that Canadians deserve about the long gun registry. It would also change the Copyright Act and actually bring in new parliamentary security. However, with all these things that have nothing to do with the economy, why is the minister not focused on providing Canadians with a plan for jobs and growth at a time when the Canadian economy has flatlined?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the last time I attended question period, the Liberal opposition had no questions for me. The previous time, there were seven questions, which I was pleased to answer, and I will, of course, continue to do that. However, it is also my responsibility to communicate to Canadians around the country about the measures that we are proposing for the budget bill, and I have been doing that from coast to coast.

With respect to the long gun registry, our Conservative government has fulfilled its commitment to end the wasteful and ineffective registry once and for all. It is still possible to access outdated copies of the long gun registry through access to information legislation. However, the will of Parliament has been clear and all copies of the registry were to be destroyed. This technical amendment would address that.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, this particular bill contains a provision that is very important to the protection of Canadian intellectual property, which is the extension of privilege to patent agents in Canada. The Intellectual Property Institute of Canada has been lobbying for this for close to a decade. My colleague Heather Mueller, who is a patent agent in this field and is part of this particular committee, talked about how her colleagues actually cried tears of joy when they saw this, because it would have such an impact on our country's ability to protect intellectual property.

I am wondering if my colleague could explain why it is so important to pass this bill in a timely manner, especially given this particular clause.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister of state for her question and for the great work she is doing for Canadians.

Our government is dedicated to cutting red tape and supporting businesses, and that is why we created a statutory privilege to protect confidential communication between intellectual property agents and their clients. These changes would help Canadian businesses avoid costly litigation and remain competitive.

We are also listening to businesses and making sure that our intellectual property system responds to their needs. That is why we have cut red tape and made it easier for businesses to use Canada's intellectual property system and to seek the legal protections they deserve.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise again in dismay to find that an omnibus budget bill is being pushed through with limitation on debate in what was supposed to be our second day here discussing the legislation.

I also note, as other colleagues have noted, that this omnibus bill contains many measures that have nothing to do with the purview of the Minister of Finance, who is here to answer questions about limiting debate. I do not know how we are going to adequately get to the multiple levels of different bills. I am particularly concerned, as other members have mentioned, about these very bizarre retroactive changes to remove a situation in law back to not only before the bill was passed but to the point when it was first introduced.

Referring to the long gun registry, Professor Kazmierski from Carleton has noted that the same government is now using omnibus legislation to introduce retroactive limitations on our already limited access rights and to potentially eliminate access to a material that we currently would have access to, and that this should be alarming to anyone concerned about the effectiveness of our democratic process.

My question to the minister is this. Will this bill be split into many pieces, with multiple committees studying it? Will we have time to ensure that we adequately study, for instance, the security of Parliament Hill? I do not see how we can.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

There will be, Mr. Speaker, ample time to debate this measure. I will repeat that in respect of the long gun registry, our Conservative government was pleased to end the wasteful and ineffective registry once and for all. Due to a bureaucratic loophole, it was still possible to access outdated copies of the registry through access to information. This clearly goes against the will of Parliament, and all copies of the registry should be destroyed. A technical amendment reinforces this point.

As to the omnibus bill, it supports our balanced budget, our low-tax plan for jobs, growth and security. All measures in the budget implementation bill were in economic action plan 2015. Many of the measures are tax related and accomplish our key goal of long-term prosperity and security.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Finance is missing the point. The problem is that if there were a loophole with the long gun registry, it should not be corrected through an omnibus budget implementation bill. There should be a stand-alone bill. Procedurally, this is wrong because the public safety committee will not be able to propose and adopt amendments. It might make recommendations that will go back to finance. It has nothing to do with it.

Is the minister not a bit ashamed to be part of a government that will have imposed time allocation 96 times to force bills down the throats of Canadians? Whatever the government's policies and promises are is fine, but it should do it properly.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is common practice, including for Liberal governments, to include a number of different measures in a budget. There is nothing new or groundbreaking in this practice.

The bill, as I said, would support our plan for low taxes, jobs, growth, and security. The bill is balanced fiscally and is balanced socially. This is in contrast to the refusal of the opposition to support any of these job-creating measures. I will reiterate, because the point does not seem to be getting across to the opposition: there is nothing new or groundbreaking in this practice.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am disheartened because, as you know, every time a time allocation motion is moved, that means not every member will have a chance to speak to the bill. In this case, we are talking about the budget, the most important bill of the year.

My region is going through tough economic times. The last time I checked, the unemployment rate in the urban areas was the highest in Canada. Our forestry industry is struggling, and so is the aluminum sector. I have a lot to say about this budget, but unfortunately, the government is preventing me from delivering a full speech on it.

I want to know why the Conservative government has such little respect for duly elected members. There are 308 members in the House of Commons. Things will likely only get worse when there are 338 and more people want to speak to bills.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we will allow enough time to debate the bill, which offers many benefits to all Canadians, including those living in the opposition member's riding.

The economic action plan proposes to change the funding plan for small businesses in Canada. This is a good example of measures that will allow more small businesses to submit an application for funding and will provide larger loans. These changes were proposed by stakeholders and could amount to an additional $100 million a year in loans. By improving access to funding, our government is continuing to encourage and support the growth and success of small businesses in Canada.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that debate on the bill is going to be limited, because there are so many Canadians who will not be getting anything from the bill, and they want to have a voice.

Why is there no northern strategy by the government opposite? In the north we hear of people looking in the dumps for food, because it is not affordable. We hear of people sleeping in vans and tents in -40° temperatures, because there is no housing for them. We hear of people going without proper medical care, because they do not have access to it.

I ask the minister, why no northern strategy? Why no strategy for Inuit people across the north? Why is his government not doing anything to help those who need it?