Debates of June 10th, 2015

Bill C-59--Time Allocation Motion

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Sorry. I was trying to be diplomatic. I did not just assume that, I saw him. He was there while the member was moving it.

I will take this opportunity to remind members that it would be helpful for the Chair and, I think, all members if they waited until the procedure that they were involved in was completed before they left the chamber. It would certainly make for less confusion.

We will now have a 30-minute question period. I will ask members to keep their questions or comments to about a minute and responses to a similar length of time.

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have made a bit of anti-democratic history today by passing a motion to shut down debate in the House of Commons 100 times now since they have formed government, and they cheer.

However, when they were in opposition, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Industry, and the Prime Minister himself said that this very tactic was offensive to democratic principles when the Liberals used it. They have moved closure and shut down debate three times more than any other government in Canadian history.

That is the Conservative legacy; that is the Conservative record. In the irony of irony's, what is the government shutting down debate on? It is the budget. It wants to shut down debate on the conversation around its terrible plan and its terrible record for Canada's economy, experiencing the worst growth outside of a recession in more than three decades. That is its legacy. That is why it wants to shut down debate in the House of Commons.

However, Canadians are watching. They know the NDP has a plan to get Canada back on track, not just economically but democratically as well, by shutting down the Senate and giving this place the life that it needs again.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, Canadians gave our government a strong mandate to focus on job creation and economic growth, and to deliver both. They expect their parliamentarians to make decisions. When this government uses time allocation, it does so in a fashion that is designed for scheduling, to allow certainty of debate and certainty for members, but most importantly, to allow members to make decisions. I know that some in the opposition are skeptical about that, but the proof is in the numbers.

I know many of them hold out the British Parliament, the mother Parliament, as the model of how things should be done. Compared with the British Parliament, we in this Parliament, compared with the parallel one that just finished off in Britain, have had more than twice as much debate on every bill that we have passed.

In fact, we have had the same amount of debate at second reading alone than the British Parliament has had for all three stages. We have had 3.3 days at second reading whereas it had one. We have had 1.6 days longer at report stage than its 1.1 day. Again, at third reading, we have had double the amount of debate that the British Parliament has had, which is two days versus its one day.

That goes to show the House that not only have we allowed considerable and substantial debate here, we have also been able to make decisions and get things done for Canadians on what matters to them most, which is making Canadians safe, and delivering economic results and job creation for Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative reform majority government and its attitude toward democracy inside the House has been simply disgusting as it does not demonstrate any true respect for proper procedures with respect to passing both budgets and legislation.

As has been noted, this is the 100th time that time allocation has been brought in on legislation which we are seeing today, the budget implementation bill. We can also talk about the Canada Wheat Board, the pooled pensions, copyright legislation, back-to-work legislation with Canada Post and Air Canada, the first nations, the free trade agreements, and the list goes on.

The only way in which the government has been able to deal with the legislative agenda as opposed to working with the opposition is to ram it through the House of Commons in an undemocratic fashion.

Why has the government been a total and absolute failure in not recognizing the importance of working in negotiation with the opposition and ensuring that Canada is served better through the normal process of thorough debate?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Minister of State (Finance)]

Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong. Certainly, I disagree with his question.

Bill C-59 supports this balanced budget that our government has brought forward. Our government has brought forward a low tax plan for Canadians. It is a road map to understand where we are going as a country.

We have a balanced budget, a plan for jobs, a plan for growth, and a plan for security. All of those are part of the budget, our economic action plan 2015. All of the measures in the budget implementation bill were in economic action plan 2015. Many of the measures are tax related and accomplish one main goal: to make certain that we can afford Canadians the prosperity they deserve.

We want to keep money in the pockets of Canadians, seniors, the middle class, all Canadians. The Liberal opposition makes it very clear that it wants to take more in taxes from Canadians. This budget makes it clear that we are continuing down a low tax plan for Canada.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague across the way. Many groups that appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance condemned the government's tactics for achieving a so-called “new balanced budget”. The way it has been used is disgraceful. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation and others condemned this tactic.

Today we are up against another time allocation motion—the 100th. This is a real shame. Once again, this is an omnibus bill that amends a lot of laws, and we have not had enough time to study it.

The Standing Committee on Finance was flooded with letters from bar associations in provinces across Canada. Among other things, they want the government to withdraw amendments to three major acts affecting the Patent Act and other similar acts.

Unfortunately, the government is ignoring us and bowing to pressure from a single group. We have not had an adversarial debate or heard divergent opinions on this part of the omnibus bill, not to mention many other parts that amend other pieces of legislation, including the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Frankly, how can the government House leader crow about us having enough time? That is completely false.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, again, I reject the premise of most of what the member said in his question.

As far as the size of this budget bill, it has been common practice in this Parliament to include various measures in a budget bill and subsequently in budget implementation bills.

I appreciate the House leader's opening answer to the questions from the opposition where he clearly laid out for Canadians the opportunities that members have at every phase to debate measures. The opposition can stand at second reading, they can be in committee, there is third reading, and then the Senate. There is ample debate.

One of the hallmarks of our Parliament and of our democracy is the ability to bring forward legislation, so that Canadians can see the direction in which we are going.

In what direction are we going? We are going in the direction of growing the economy, making certain that taxes stay low, and making certain that Canadians are safe at home and abroad. This budget is clear. It is good for families, it keeps taxes low, and also, through universal child care benefits and others, puts money into Canadians' pockets.

NDP members say they want more debate, but we know that at every stage they get up with the same speeches, with the same talking points, that the NDP House leader rolls out for them.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today is truly a very sad, very anti-democratic day. The government is imposing closure for the 100th time. It is imposing closure not only on us in the opposition, but on the people of Drummond as well.

The people of Drummond elected me as their representative to speak on their behalf here in the House of Commons and to discuss the budget. The people of Drummond certainly want to know what is in the budget for fighting climate change.

What does this budget include for the environment? Nothing. It needs to be said. There is nothing for the environment, nothing for dealing with climate change, nothing for the economy of the future, and nothing for transitioning to green energy. I wanted to mention that in my speech, but I might not get to that because of this new closure motion.

The government is preventing me from having a say and preventing the people of Drummond from having a voice here in the House of Commons. That is very serious.

What is more, this comes on the heels of the Prime Minister's trip to the G7, where he once again undermined discussions to reach an iron-clad agreement to fight climate change. The G7 members in Europe wanted an agreement to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050.

Of course the Conservative Prime Minister undermined that effort and now the timeframe has been extended to 2100, which is the same as putting it off indefinitely.

The government needs to respect democracy as well as the people of Drummond and all the other ridings, who also have the right to express themselves.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, again, I am very proud of our government's record in the past on all of the different items that he has brought forward.

This budget gives us an idea of where we are going in the future and where we are going over the next number of years. The government has laid out a very clear road map that shows that we are going to continue to see the economy in Canada grow. That means that we will have more jobs.

Month after month, we see more and more jobs being rolled out. In spite of an oil patch that we know is under stress, we know that more and more jobs are being created across this country. In manufacturing, we see a real optimism among those that the Liberal leader has basically given up on in Ontario.

Again, this budget lays out that we are going to watch the economy grow. Here is how we are going to do it. We are going to continue to cut taxes for those who are creating jobs. We are going to continue to put money into the pockets of Canadian families. We are going to make sure that Canadians are safe at home and abroad. We are going to put resources into our national defence, into our military, and into the RCMP, CSIS and those who look after us here in Canada.

We have the greatest country in the world. Provinces that have ever experimented with the NDP know that they cannot ever again afford the economic policies of any New Democratic—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I would like to remind hon. members to keep their questions and comments to approximately one minute so that more members have the opportunity to speak.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the 100th gag order, and it is completely shameful. It does not make any sense.

The people of my riding are being insulted. Even my baby is feeling insulted. It has kicked at least 100 times since the government announced this 100th gag order.

What is more, they are imposing a gag order on a budget bill. We are talking about the budget that the Conservatives were two months late in tabling. They did not want to table the budget for two months. They needed more time. Finally, they balanced the budget, but do you know how, Mr. Speaker? They did so by selling the GM shares and by dipping into the contingency and employment insurance funds. If more time was needed to debate the budget bill, then why did they not table the budget two months earlier rather than imposing a gag order, which is a slap in the face to Canadians?

I simply hope that Canadians will remember this 100th gag order and that they will get the Conservatives the hell out of here for at least 100 years.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to wish the hon. member all the best as she is preparing to deliver another healthy child. I would just ask that she does not get too worked up here in the House until after that happens.

I know that the opposition does not like the fact that we have such an ambitious and robust agenda to strengthen the economy and to create jobs. The opposition does not like the idea that the government is doing its job. Again, we have seen, time after time—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Newton—North Delta on a point of order.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that I heard my colleague across the way make such a personal comment about my colleague on this side. I am really quite disturbed that a parliamentarian would make that kind of comment. It was not only demeaning, but very condescending.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I appreciate the intervention by the hon. member for Newton—North Delta. I did not hear anything unparliamentary in the remarks of the hon. minister of state. I am not sure specifically what she is referring to, but we will carry on.

The hon. minister of state.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, between the two of us, the hon. member, and her question, I do not know if the hon. member heard the question from the NDP. She talked about the fact that her unborn child was kicking inside her as we have gone through this debate. I simply stood and wished her all the best in her pregnancy. I certainly did not mean any offence by it, and I wish her all the best.

In answer to her question, we know that the opposition does not like the fact that we have an ambitious plan for Canada. The high-tax, no development party across the way does not like that fact that we are a government that is saying that we have confidence in the Canadian people. We have confidence in Canadian small- and medium-sized businessmen and women who are out there and making a go of it, putting food on their table and making sure that they employ other Canadians.

We know that that party opposes low taxes because every time we bring forward policy and legislation to lower taxes, it votes against it.

Shame on the opposition for bringing forward ideas that would only cost jobs here in Canada. That is why Canadians know that they are better off with this Conservative government.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is only our Conservative government that supports the agriculture sector and recognizes the immense contribution of hard-working farmers to the Canadian economy. For instance, economic action plan 2015 will provide an additional $12 million to the agri-marketing program to promote high quality Canadian agriculture and agri-food products around the world. As well, the budget also commits an additional $18 million to expand market access so that agricultural industries can have open access to new markets and take advantage of many new trade opportunities.

I wonder if the Minister of State for Finance could please further expand on some of the other great things that our government is doing to support farming in this country.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Finally we have a good question, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank that member for his hard work on finance committee—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Gatineau on a point of order.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. The minister of state probably thinks that is a good question because it avoids the real matter currently before the House, namely the time allocation motion.

The question was on the content of Bill C-59.

The Chair always gives leeway but at the same time, this is a blatant direct content of the bill question and not a time allocation question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I appreciate the intervention by the hon. member for Gatineau.

Once again, it is probably not a point of order, but rather a matter for debate about the difference between the questions from the two sides.

I am aware that we are within a 30-minute time period here so we are going to try and continue on and make sure that enough time is available and ask members to concentrate their questions and responses in respect to the question that is in front of the House.

The hon. Minister of State for Finance.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for ruling on both points that were not points of order.

We have brought forward the measures that we have in this budget for many reasons. They help Canadians in all careers, in all businesses, in all walks of life.

For generations our farmers have fed Canadians and people around the world. We have also done more than that, not just in what we produce, but also in providing jobs and opportunities

I represent a rural constituency where agriculture is important. That is why it is important for us to move on—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for LaSalle—Émard on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, I am rising on a point of order.

I will not have the opportunity to debate this bill because a gag order has just been imposed, but the Minister of State for Finance will have 30 minutes more than I will to debate this issue.

We are supposed to be asking questions only about the gag order. Does he agree with this 100th gag order? It does not necessarily affect him because he has been given an additional 30 minutes to debate this bill and say everything he wants. However, his colleagues behind him are just as penalized by this gag order as we are. I would like him to talk about the unfairness of this 100th gag order and how it affects his colleagues.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I will address the point of order. Members will know that it is not the ability of the Chair to adjudicate the responses that come when questions are posed in the House. The exchange that I heard this afternoon is certainly in order. As we have seen in previous 30-minute question and answer periods around the issue of time allocation, the subject of the bill is quite often very much a part of the debate and really cannot be separated from the issues around the relevance of the time allocation question itself. We understand this to be true and it is left to the minister or parliamentary secretary, in this case the Minister of State for Finance, to respond in a way that he sees fit.

I see the hon. Minister of State for Finance rising. Is it on the point of order or are we continuing the questions? The hon. Minister of State for Finance.