Debates of May 10th, 2016

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Motions. The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you might find unanimous consent for the following motion.

I move that, notwithstanding any standing order, special order, or usual practice of the House, Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures be divided into two bills, namely Bill C-15A and Bill C-15B, as follows:

(1) Bill C-15A shall contain all the provisions of the bill respecting the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act to, among other things: (a) replace “permanent impairment allowance” with “career impact allowance”; (b) replace “totally and permanently incapacitated” with “diminished earning capacity”; (c) increase the percentage in the formula used to calculate the earnings loss benefit; (d) specify when a disability award becomes payable and clarify the formula used to calculate the amount of a disability award; (e) increase the amounts of a disability award; (f) increase the amount of a death benefit; and all the provisions that provide, among other things, that the Minister of Veterans Affairs must pay to a person who received a disability award or death benefit under that act before April 1, 2017, an amount that represents the increase in the amount for the disability award or the death benefit, as the case may be, and the consequential amendments to the Children of Deceased Veterans Education Assistance Act, the Pension Act, and the Income Tax Act.

(2) Bill C-15B shall contain all the remaining provisions of Bill C-15 and retain the status on the Order Paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order, and that Bill C-15A be deemed read a second time and referred to committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage, and deemed read a third time and passed, and that the law clerk and parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary, and that the bills be reprinted.

I wonder if I could find unanimous consent for that motion, so we can show our veterans that we support them and appreciate the service they have made for our country.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

There is no unanimous consent.

I will return to introduction of private members' bills. I think I missed the fact that the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing was rising.

Defence of Canada Medal Act (1946-1989)

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-270, An Act respecting the establishment and award of a Defence of Canada Medal (1946-1989).

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to table this bill. I rise to reintroduce an act respecting the establishment and award of a defence of Canada medal for the men and women who served Canada during the Cold War.

The medal officially pays tribute to those who served in the defence of Canada from 1946 to 1989. That was when, as states developed weapons of war, we became aware of the fragility of peace and our own vulnerability.

These individuals served in the protection of Canada from threats posed by the countries behind the Iron Curtain. They were trained and prepared to defend Canada in all ways necessary, but fortunately were never engaged on home soil.

The medal is intended to be awarded to individuals who served in regular and reserve forces, police forces, emergency measures organizations, as well as civil organizations. The act represents the vision of retired Captain Ulrich Krings, and has widespread support across the country, especially from those who worked hard to keep us safe and prepared during those unsettling times.

I thank my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue for seconding my bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Falun Gong

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am presenting a petition signed by constituents in my riding of Etobicoke Centre and throughout the GTA. The over 3,000 petitioners are concerned by the ongoing persecution campaign to eradicate Falun Gong, a spiritual practice with the core principles of truthfulness, compassion, and tolerance. The petitioners urge the passage of a resolution that would put a stop to the persecution and murder of Falun Gong practitioners, and seek Canadian legislation to combat forced organ harvesting of incarcerated Falun Gong practitioners in China.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Thornhill, and as co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Falun Gong, I too present a petition signed by several thousand of my constituents, and constituents across Canada. The Chinese government's own human organ transplantation and execution statistics indicate that between 45,000 and 60,000 Falun Gong practitioners have been killed for their organs, which were then sold for profit. The signatories are petitioning the Canadian government to call for an end to the unethical organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners in China.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to join my colleagues on both sides of the House to present a petition from 4,000 members from both my riding and across Canada who are requesting Parliament and our Canadian government to publicly call for an end to the persecution of the Falun Gong practitioners in China, and amend legislation to combat forced organ harvesting, as well as passing a resolution to establish measures to stop the Chinese Communist regime's crime of systematically murdering Falun Gong practitioners for their organs.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too rise with members of this House to present this petition from thousands of people across this country, which requests that Parliament and the Canadian government pass a resolution to establish measures to stop the Chinese Communist regime's crimes of systematically murdering Falun Gong practitioners for their organs, to amend Canadian legislation to combat forced organ harvesting, and to publicly call for an end to the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China. I am pleased to rise with this petition.

Tax on Baby Products

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present my petition to eliminate the tax on essential baby products.

In my opinion, lots of products, such as frozen pizzas and maraschino cherries, are not essential. There is no federal tax on those products, but people have to pay tax on essential baby products such as diapers. I think it is only logical to get rid of the tax on basic baby care items, as well as breastfeeding products as a way to promote breastfeeding in Canada.

I sincerely hope that members will heed the petitioners and eliminate the federal tax on these products.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I know colleagues have been waiting for this moment for some time. I move:

That, in relation to Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill;

and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at 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 said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

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

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, two days of debate is all we have had on the budget. When the government House leader who moved the motion said this is the moment that all members were waiting for, I can certainly assure him that nobody on this side of the House was waiting for that motion. We were waiting for more opportunities to debate the bill.

I do not know why the Liberals are afraid of debating the bill. It is possibly because it is saddling Canadians with massive amounts of debt, that they are borrowing billions more than they promised during the election campaign. That is probably why they want to get it off the floor of the House of Commons and into committee. This is not a budget that they are proud of. This is a budget that breaks election promises. This is a budget that will saddle future Canadians with billions of dollars in debt. That is probably why they want to get it out of the House and into committee. That is terribly undemocratic.

I suspect that the Minister of Finance does not enjoy debating in the House because he gets questions that make him uncomfortable. He cannot control it like a media opportunity or a photo op. The Liberals cannot control the flow of the House, and that is why they want to get it out and into committee.

I ask the Minister of Finance why he felt that two days of debate was long enough, why he is not proud of this budget, and why he broke his election promise to only run a $10-billion deficit.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the amount of debate and the speakers on Bill C-15 is either comparable or much higher than debates on budget implementation acts from the previous government. In most cases, those BIAs were close to double the number of pages that are in Bill C-15.

I can say that including today, our government will have provided for almost 19 hours of debate at second reading. If we look at the previous session of Parliament, the previous government shut down second reading debate on two budget bills, Bill C-43 and Bill C-59, in under 10 hours. We have already nearly doubled the amount of time for debate at second reading on Bill C-15.

We are proud of the bill, and we are very much looking forward to putting it forward and getting it passed for Canadians so we can make a real difference in their lives.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government's decision to use time allocation is appalling and disgusting. The minister just admitted that they allowed as much time for this debate as the previous Conservative government. I remember that during the election campaign, just six or seven months ago, Liberal candidates went all over the country saying that they would do better than the Conservatives, that they would change how things are done here in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, the opposite is happening.

We have exactly the same tone now in this House after the last few weeks of imposing closure time after time, as we had under the former Conservative government, yet Liberals promised to do differently.

My question is very simple. Why have the Liberals betrayed their electors, and why are they bringing exactly the same tone back to the House of Commons that Canadians rejected last October?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that there has not been enough debate on the bill, yet just one hour into the second reading debate, the NDP finance critic moved a motion to end debate on the bill.

While the wording was judged inadmissible by the Speaker, the motion would have sent us into an election, of course. I know that is not what he really wants, and we all see this ruse for what it most clearly was.

I want to know why the NDP do not support veterans and their families receiving their well-earned benefits as soon as possible. Do they really oppose moving the qualifying age for the old age security back to age 65? Does the NDP really oppose the employment insurance benefits in the bill that are proposed? Our view is that we do not think so.

We want to get the bill to committee where it can be properly studied and where witnesses can be heard, so that we can move forward on helping Canadians in the way that they need and deserve.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find curious what the Minister of Finance said about the need to get the bill to committee. I do not know if the minister realizes that the committee has already set up the schedule of witnesses. The committee is starting the study of the bill today by having officials come in from various ministries within the Government of Canada. Therefore, picking up on my colleague's thoughts at the beginning of this period, I believe that what this is about is the fact that the more we shine light on the budget contents, the more concerned we become.

The best way to shine light on the budget content is by debating it here in the House, on the floor, and not sending it off to a committee to take a look at. It is an excuse to send it to the committee to work on at the same time we currently are, being respectful of the deadlines the government has with respect to these bills.

I mean, there are things we have found so far in the budget. First of all, it is assuming that we are in deficit when we know we gave the Liberals a surplus at the beginning. They took private-sector projections and manipulated them for their own good. They have padded billions in spending and deficit in there that have no real home and no information for Canadians on what it is for. It is exaggerating how many jobs could be created.

We have different offices here in the House, such as the parliamentary budget officer, who can shine more light on the budget, and we get that information. My colleagues in the NDP ask for more information, they get it, and they are able to talk about the effect on small business. This is the kind of debate that has to happen.

Why is the minister so afraid of more information coming out on the House of Commons floor? Why is he in such a rush to shuffle the bill through?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is actually a little difficult to take my colleague from across the way seriously. In the previous government, the Conservatives used time allocation over 100 times in the last Parliament. Now that they are in opposition, clearly they seem to have a different point of view.

I want to reiterate that we have had almost 19 hours of debate on this budget bill; whereas, for Bill C-43, for example, a bill that had 478 pages, which is significantly more than twice the number of pages this budget has, we had a debate of under 10 hours.

We believe we have had a full and robust debate. We believe we should move forward so we can make a real difference for Canadians, so for example, we can get the benefits that veterans deserve to them in a timely and efficient way.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to admit, I have been tested and I am a little red-green colour blind, but I can say that for the years I have been here, I am clearly becoming red-blue colour blind in all measures of the sense, because we are seeing exactly here what the Conservatives have done in the past.

It is interesting; if the Liberals want to measure themselves to the previous government, when it comes to the Senate, lobbying, ministers and fundraising, and all the issues that are so important for Canadians, they can set that bar all they want. However, my comment to the minister is that to suggest members of Parliament from any side of the House do not support our veterans is absolutely outrageous, shameful, and disrespectful. My grandfather died in the fall of Burma; my other grandfather served in the Royal Navy. We all support our veterans. For him to wrap himself around that element is nothing short of a disgrace to the House.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we think about what we are putting forward, we do need to reflect on the fact that our budget puts forth measures that would make a real difference for Canadians. We are going to make a difference for Canadians in many different ways.

We have identified for this House important measures that would make a huge difference for Canadian families. We need to move forward on them quickly, because we know we can make a difference for families with our Canada child benefit.

We know there are measures in our budget that could make a real difference for students by increasing student grants for them for the next school year.

We know that, yes, we are putting forward changes in benefits for veterans in our country, which would make a real difference for veterans. They would provide them with the service they require in order to actually get an understanding of what they are eligible for. Most importantly, they would change their situation so they could be better off in the future.

We are proud of this budget. We want to move forward rapidly to ensure that Canadians have the benefits they deserve and need. We look forward to the support of this House in order to do that in an expeditious fashion.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to make a couple of, I believe, valid points. First, what we are really talking about with respect to the budget implementation bill is an election promise that was made in our platform and now is being delivered.

The Minister of Finance talked about the Canada child benefit and how it would be greatly enhanced. One of my personal favourites is the proposed increase to the guaranteed income supplement.

While I was in opposition I said that time allocation is necessary at times when the opposition is unable to work with the government or the government is not able to get agreement to get things passed in a timely fashion. That is what we are looking at today. We are trying to get the bill passed in a timely fashion, and that is why we sometimes have to use time allocation.

Would the Minister of Finance not agree that this is an important piece of legislation that was part of our election platform, and Canadians want to see it put in place and that is why we had to use time allocation to ensure it gets done in a timely fashion?