Debates of Nov. 15th, 2016

Bill C-29--Time Allocation Motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was looking forward to receiving a question from the member, because I feel that he is projecting something that the previous government did, but which is not true.

It is actually with great regret that I had to bring forward this motion today. I was hoping that we could work together better and would know how much debate was needed. Part of working together is having those conversations. I really believed we could have those conversations to know how much debate the members opposite wanted. We would be more than willing to work with the opposition, but when are not getting an answer, it is really hard to work with them in this case. I know there will be many more opportunities.

I would like to remind the hon. member that our budget implementation bill is half the size of a bill the previous government once introduced. We have given more time to debate this legislation at second reading, six days of debate. The previous government thought that three or four days was always more than enough. It is interesting to see how perspectives change.

We will continue to ensure that we have meaningful debate and that committees have the ability to do the good work they do, as well.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, to hear the Liberal House leader say this budget implementation bill is a reflection of the Liberals' campaign commitment to Canadians is hard to square with the government's failure to live up to its commitment to reduce the small business tax to 9%.

Its failure to do that in the March budget was a broken promise to Canadians. The parliamentary budget officer estimates that this cancellation, this broken promise, will cost small and medium-sized enterprises more than $2.1 billion. Small business was looking forward to those promised tax reductions as a way to stimulate the local economy and create jobs. We know that 80% of new jobs are created by small business.

In what way does the small business tax cut broken promise square with the Liberals' election commitments to Canadians? As well, why is the government unwilling to allow further debate on this broken promise?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is a great opportunity for me to rise in the House during Global Entrepreneurship Week when small businesses and entrepreneurs are being celebrated. They should not only be celebrated for a day or a week, but every day. I agree that small businesses are the backbone of this economy. They are our job-creators. They are the people that grow communities.

We have been working very closely with them. We are taking a whole-of-government approach, with over 20 departments recognizing how they are relating directly to and working with small businesses. We know we can always do more. We are listening to them and engaging with them.

We are taking the priorities and changes they want to see, so we can advance and implement them. It is important to note that small business owners do believe they can grow their businesses. They want measures so they can grow and create the opportunities and jobs they want to create. Small business owners do not want to remain small. Some may, and they are welcome to. However, there are many who want opportunities to grow their businesses, to create the jobs that Canadians want them to create, to grow their communities and the opportunities in them.

We look forward to continuing to work with all members of the House and small business owners, especially.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I, too, had a great return to my riding last week. While there, I visited a number of high schools and met with four different classes. They were all kids who are about to graduate. They are very concerned.

They are concerned about where the Liberal government is going with their taxes, asking how they were going to pay for this. Some of the kids were telling me that they were looking at the budget as part of a class project. They wanted to know how a government comes out with a budget that does not even factor in indexing. The kids were very concerned about that.

I would like to ask the government House leader a question. How can you bring in a budget without putting in indexing, and how much is that indexing going to cost us over the next five years?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I am assuming the member is asking that through the Chair, not directly to the member.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always great to hear about colleagues visiting their constituents and visiting kids.

I would like to commend that teacher for bringing the budget into her classroom so that our youth had the opportunity to discuss it, and for more youth to have the opportunity to engage with the Government of Canada to see the work we are doing. They are not only the leaders of tomorrow, but the leaders of today. Therefore, I applaud that teacher and the hon. member for taking the time to speak with those very students. Those are the kind of people we are investing in.

The hon. member said this government has lowered taxes on middle-class Canadians. This government increased taxes on the 1% of wealthiest Canadians. That is something we have not seen done before. That is investing in Canadian families. That is investing in middle-class families. That is living up to the commitment we have made.

As the member said so eloquently, the youth are watching to see what this government is doing. They expect us to deliver on our commitments. That is why the implementation of the budget is so necessary and why the committee should have the opportunity to study this legislation.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to return to the issue of privatization, because a central piece of the Liberal promise and budget was to invest in infrastructure. What we learned from the economic update is that the way the government will do this is by selling that infrastructure and having that new infrastructure owned by private investment firms, many of which are not from Canada. Therefore, the idea that we should be closing down debate just as we are learning the details of this central pillar of the Liberal financial platform is ridiculous. Perhaps it is the fact that the only person from the government side that I have heard standing up and defending this cockamamie scheme during the debate is the member for Spadina—Fort York. He likes to talk about how this is really about affordable housing, and that we should look at the platform. He mentioned the Canada infrastructure bank. The platform mentions it as a bank that will lend money to municipalities and provinces that want to build infrastructure; it does not talk about using it to leverage private funds and then having our highways, airports, and bridges owned by multinational foreign investors. That is simply not in the platform. Maybe the member for Spadina—Fort York is running out of breath and the government cannot find anyone else to defend this scheme.

Is that why we have to close down debate, because the government cannot find anyone else on its benches willing to defend this ridiculous scheme?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will remind members that this is the budget implementation act. It does not refer to the infrastructure bank. The budget implementation act brings in the amendments that we committed to to Canadians, which were introduced in budget 2016 in March of this year: amendments to the Employment Insurance Act; to the Old Age Security Act; to the Canada Education Savings Act; to the Canada Disability Savings Act; and to the financial consumer protection framework.

To go back to an earlier question, our tax measures closed loopholes to protect consumers, to support our small business owners, and to do the work that Canadians want us to do. This act implements the measures that were introduced in budget 2016 in March of this year. Every measure in this implementation act was in the budget of 2016. It only advances and implements that act.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Except this part.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are saying let us get it to committee so that it can study it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the member for Elmwood—Transcona that he was afforded the opportunity of respect while he was standing. I would expect that he will do the same when someone else is speaking.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, Canadian veterans have bravely served our country. They have stepped up to serve us in the most difficult of situations. We owe them our respect, gratitude, and support.

Can the hon. government House leader tell the House how this bill will support our veterans?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that great question, especially as last week was Veterans' Week. As I am sure many members did, I had the opportunity to be with our veterans on Remembrance Day. The night before Remembrance Day, I went around my community to visit cenotaphs and to thank our cadets as well. Last week, I also had the opportunity to bring together land, sea and air cadets in one room to have a fruitful discussion with the Minister of National Defence.

We recognize the important work that our veterans have done. We recognize that the rights and freedoms that we enjoy today are because of our men and women in uniform, not only those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice but also those who came home and those who continue to fight for our rights and freedoms. The government will give back to the veterans who have given so much in service to all Canadians. Canada will restore critical access to services for veterans, and ensure the long-term financial security of disabled veterans. Canada's veterans will receive more local in-person government services, as well as better access to case managers.

I was in the Waterloo region and I had multiple people commend this government for opening up the offices—and most recently in Nova Scotia as well. I have to say that it has been very well received, not only because it is the right thing to do but because it is what we should have done a long time ago.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I heard the government House leader talk about the importance of moving this legislation to committee so it could hear from witnesses, study the bill further, and send it back to the House with recommendations. Is the government House leader aware that closure has already been introduced in committee on this particular legislation? If committee only has a limited amount of time to study the bill, then how can moving closure at this time in the House be justified?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, the committee has recognized the important work that has to be done. Under this government, committees are working. They are doing good work. They are a part of the process, and there is a reason why the process exists. The work of the committee is the work of the committee. I do not comment on the work of committees. That was part of the commitment we made to Canadians. Our parliamentary secretaries do not even have a vote in committees, so that they can do the open and transparent work that they do.

I understand that the committee wants to study this legislation. I understand the committee recognizes the importance of this legislation, especially when it comes to the Canadians we represent in the House.

We have important work to do. I know that if we really want to, and if we work a bit harder, we can work together for Canadians. That is a commitment this government has made, and it is a commitment we will continue to live up to.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have two points I want to make to the government.

First of all, we are in the middle of a session of Parliament, and we just returned after a week in our constituencies. What I am trying to say is that when we gather for a parliamentary session, we have a duty, which is to speak directly to the legislation before the House.

In addition, we have nothing against ministers or the Prime Minister meeting with people outside of the House, but there is a time for that, and that time is when Parliament is not sitting. Ministers need to be present in the House in order to respond directly to our questions and so that all members who want to speak to a given bill have the opportunity to do so. The motion being put forward by the government right now does the exact opposite.

On the other point, the member for Yellowhead raised the issue of youth. It is important to tell our youth the truth. May I remind the minister that she has been elected under the oath of her platform? It said a modest deficit and getting back to zero deficit in three years. The reality is everything but that. The deficit is expected to be three times higher, and we do not know when we will get back to a zero deficit. How can she deal with that?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member was not implying that I am not telling the truth. The member has been in the chamber far longer than I, and he knows that we do not make such implications.

We have already had six days of debate, and we want the committee to be able to study the bill, hear from witnesses, and work hard so that we can continue our discussions.

I find it unfortunate that we could not reach a consensus. We wanted to work together to find out how many days of debate the Conservatives wanted, but they did not provide us with that information.

When it comes to youth, we are committed to working with youth and we will continue to engage with youth. We have done that at unprecedented levels.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is truly a shame that the Liberals are imposing time allocation on a bill that has more than 146 clauses and amends 13 statutes. Its 234 pages make changes to a number of aspects related to the budget.

The Liberals claim to be transparent. They claim to be agents of change, the kind of change ensuring that all Canadians will be consulted, that there will be time to talk things out, and that there will be fewer inequalities.

There are several measures in this bill that will not help reduce inequality. For example, there is no tax credit for hiring young people in this budget. There are a number of inconsistencies when it comes to employment insurance. The board that is meant to ensure that workers are heard—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I must interrupt the hon. member if she wishes to obtain a response. The minister, for a brief response to the hon. member.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Madam Speaker, it is precisely for the reasons the hon. member has given that we want to refer the bill to committee for review.

Again, we do not take these decisions lightly. We are committed to ensuring that all members have enough time within reason.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings 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 Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.