Debates of June 15th, 2016

Taxpayer Bill of Rights

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to speak tonight on Motion No. 43 put forward by my colleague, which instructs the finance committee to study and report on the means of creating an enforceable duty of care.

I feel that when I come to this chamber, I come with years of experience of working with constituents who have dealt with Canada Revenue Agency issues. That is what I would like to speak to this evening, as well as sharing some of my constituents' issues and some of the settlements we have gone through in the past.

I know that the previous speakers who spoke in the first hour of this debate have discussed the motion, including files such as Irv Leroux and constituents from their own ridings. This evening, I would like to share some of the situations that occurred in my years as a constituency assistant, over the last 11 years.

When we are working as constituency assistants, we work with so many different people. Many people come in with issues, whether it is their passport, Service Canada, or not receiving their old age security, but one of the biggest files that we worked on in Elgin—Middlesex—London had to do with Revenue Canada. It is very difficult for some people to deal with the Canada Revenue Agency.

With the motion that our colleague has put forward, I believe it is very important to understand that there is a service of care and a duty of care that is necessary for the constituents. As a constituency assistant and through members of Parliament offices, we have worked many times on a variety of reviews, whether it is a review of business tax, marital status, child tax benefits, or just a regular income tax return, which can be looked at individually for up to 10 years.

I want to share a couple of particular cases that I had. One started with a good friend of mine who was a chartered accountant. First of all, this gentleman's name is Bill Graham and he has the biggest heart of gold. When one of his clients, who was a retired farmer, came to him with a $1-million debt owed to Revenue Canada, he decided it to do it pro bono. Within a few months, he asked me if I would join his team to see if we could get any movement on the Canada Revenue Agency file.

This gentleman, who was aging, had a wife who had over the previous two years become blind. Their son and a nephew had also passed away. He, himself, had many failing health issues. Due to some arbitrary audits that were done on his farm, it was found that he owed a $1 million.

I recognize that a lot of times when arbitrary audits happen to people through Canada Revenue Agency, it is because people have not provided some information or put forward some of the requests, whether it is a tax return that is necessary, such as a T2, or a corporate income tax return, or whether it was just their personal income taxes.

He was not able or capable of doing so at the time, so an arbitrary assessment had occurred. This is a gentleman who, right now, if we are talking about his income, probably brings in $25,000 to $30,000 a year. At one time, it was a very successful farm, but that was back in the eighties and nineties. Unfortunately, the situation had changed for him, and because of his deteriorating health and that of his wife, he no longer ran a very lucrative farm.

After this, he had gone to Bill Graham, as I said. This arbitrary assessment was done and he owed over $1 million. Unfortunately, he had tried many times to speak to them, show them the information, show medical notes and a variety of different things, but none of that stuff convinced Revenue Canada to change the decision.

Unfortunately, that is when our office had to get involved. That was when I was working for member of Parliament, Joe Preston. I sent in all of the information, as well as referring back to the taxpayer bill of rights.

I realize the taxpayer bill of rights is truly that; it is sort of like the 10 commandments. It is something that people should live by, but it seems not to be as enforceable as necessary. That is why when we have a motion like Motion No. 43 come through, I fully support that.

In a situation like this, a man who already had deteriorating health was told he owed $1 million. They were putting a lien on his farm. They then started taking all of his old age security that he would receive and withholding that. Any government funds that were being sent to him were being held back. We took a family that was going through a horrible time in the first place, and the Government of Canada, through the Canada Revenue Agency, just made it worse for this poor gentleman and his family.

I am very proud to say that after a number of months' work and many phone calls and all the documentation we sent in, the direction of this file did turn around, and he fortunately did receive the audit back indicating he owed about $10,000 in taxes, not $1 million. Can members imagine, when a person is going through the worst time in his life and receives a bill in the mail for over $1 million in back taxes? Those are the sort of things for which this motion is necessary.

As I was discussing earlier, I spoke to my assistant in St. Thomas. Her name is Kaylie. As I said, we have a very busy constituency office. We were told that ours is one of the busiest in the southwestern Ontario area. We have a person who just deals with our Revenue Canada cases. We deal with about 15 new cases per day, and it is not just changing of addresses. A lot of times, it is dealing with marital status reviews and a variety of things. I said to Kaylie that I needed to know what has happened this week. It is really unfortunate when my assistant can pull from her memory bank something that just happened yesterday because it is that common that we are finding these issues.

I want to share an email that Kaylie sent me today when I asked her to share with me one simple situation. She shared this with me:

A constituent came in the office and had to provide proof of her marital status (her husband was living in the US) so she had to provide proof that the children were living with her and her marital status was single. She provided all the necessary documentation and received back payment for the months of CCTB that she missed. 2 months later, she came into the office with a letter from CRA indicating that she has been selected for a random review to provide proof that she is the primary caregiver for her children.

CRA would not accept the documentation that they had received previously. We have a situation here where a single mother is going through a review, which is very common. It is important to have reviews; fraud happens in the Canada Revenue Agency. However, we are looking at one simple case where the woman had already proven that she had primary care of her children. The next thing we knew, a random review occurred. Random reviews occur where the agency is just doing an arbitrary review of somebody. Once again, the woman needed to submit all documentation proving that she was a primary caregiver, that her children were in school, and a variety of things. At that time, her child tax benefit and any benefits that came from the Canada Revenue Agency such as the Ontario trillium benefit and the GST benefit for families all ceased. The woman was advised that she could not provide the same information that she had provided two months previous, which makes it extremely difficult for families. Luckily, the successful and very good staff that I have, who know they have to go after everything, are working on this.

Imagine people living in a community who do not know to go to their member of Parliament and who have other troubles. Unfortunately, many people walk into our office with a brown envelope. When they see that it is from the Canada Revenue Agency, due to the issues that have happened to them in the past, they bring their unopened mail to us. This is, unfortunately, not uncommon. We have many people who show up and say they are scared to open a letter.

I have dealt with many cases where we see families for months and months who have had their child tax benefit cut off and who owe enormous amounts of money because of past debts. A lot of times it might be something as simple as a T slip that was duplicated and the Canada Revenue Agency thought the people had received more money than they actually did. Sometimes it is about proving that someone stole their social insurance number. That too has happened. We have a case of fraud. I understand, when we are dealing with these things, that it is very important that we recognize that fraud occurs.

In this motion, the member has asked that there be a duty of care. We recognize that the civil term, which I would call customer service of the Government of Canada, needs to be used in situations like this. We are in some cases removing food from people's table, making it so they cannot pay rent, and a variety of different things; and it is because there has either been an error by the agent, or an audit that did not look at all of the correct information.

I fully support this motion. I hope that everyone in this chamber will also support this motion because it is a right step forward for Canadians. We must continue to protect Canadians and do what is best for them.

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

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to address the motion before us today.

I listened to the member across the way. She talked about the whole issue of taxpayers' rights and tries to give the impression that the Conservatives are now the great defenders of taxpayers' rights. They say the proof is in the pudding. At the end of the day, they had 10 years to work on some of the initiatives the member is talking about. Obviously, they failed to accomplish that.

We have an opposition now that wants to come across as the great defenders of a number of issues. When they had the opportunity to address the issue, what did they actually accomplish? Many of the constituents I represent would say, in a couple of words, not much, because when the Conservatives had the reins of power, when they could have implemented some of the things that are being mentioned in this particular motion, they did not do it.

There is a good reason why they did not do it. I would suggest the minister responsible for Canada Revenue probably sat down with the caucus back then and explained that it really was not necessary. Some of the actions the motion is talking about do not really make too much sense.

I would like to go through it and maybe suggest to members that there are a number of issues that I would ultimately argue with which Canadians are very much in tune, and understandably so. Taxation, Canada Revenue Agency, everyone is concerned about that because we all contribute to taxes, we all have a vested interest in what is taking place there.

For many years I have advocated that what we want is a consumer-friendly type of Canada Revenue Agency. One that would have the outreach necessary and people could make a live connection whenever possible in a timely fashion, not only for people who pay taxes, consumers, but also for small businesses.

I suggest there are wonderful opportunities. That is why I was actually quite pleased that in the 2016 budget we proposed to invest $185.6 million in the CRA to address the government's commitment to service excellence through a number of initiatives, particularly for telephone service and correspondence.

Let me suggest that is quite different from what we saw in the former government. The former government was more preoccupied with cutting back than they were in reinforcing with resources that are necessary to meet some basic standards of service delivery.

Over the last number of years I have had the good fortune to talk to many members of Canada's civil service. I would ultimately argue that our civil service is second to no other in the world. In fact, we get civil service agencies from around the world coming to Canada to learn how we administer the types of programs we do, including the Canada Revenue Agency. Other countries recognize the high quality of our civil service and its professional manner and they are looking at ways to duplicate it.

I suspect Liberal caucus members, at the very least, will be unanimous in recognizing the level of expertise our civil service brings to the table day in and day out. We take this very seriously.

Getting back to the motion before us today, the Conservatives want to coin the phrase “taxpayer bill of rights” so it fits nicely in their press conferences or press releases, maybe their ten percenters, or mailers, and so forth. As they comment on those sorts of titles, they should also reference the fantastic work our civil service does for all Canadians.

Let me highlight why I believe this is not a bill members should support.

The Taxpayers' Ombudsman reports directly to the Minister of National Revenue and is neither an advocate for taxpayers nor a defender of the CRA. Empowering the ombudsman to order redress is inconsistent with other ombudsmen officers appointed by Parliament who have no such authority.

I can understand why the official opposition is trying to promote this, but I do not believe it is in our best interests. There are many other things we can do that will achieve what this motion has proposed to achieve in different ways. I do not think we can justify giving this ombudsman a unique characteristic, given that a mechanism already exists.

The creation of an enforceable duty of care would be redundant and would provide no more force than what currently exists today. The taxpayer bill of rights contains a mix of legislative rights and non-legislative service rights. It is difficult to support this motion. We need to recognize that it would limit the minister's ability to deliver on her mandate to improve the CRA's service.

Ultimately, the motion would force the agency to implement a series of very costly measures that would have no concrete impact on the improvement of services or ensure higher quality. To me, that speaks volumes. With scarce resources, there are many things we could do, some of which we have already taken action on in budget 2016.

I referenced the millions of dollars dedicated to improve the quality of service. The millions of dollars I have not referenced, about which Canadians are also concerned, are the dollars of people who are looking for the back door and avoiding paying taxes.

There is no shortage of ideas for ways we could improve the Canada Revenue Agency and the types of services it could provide. If we can reinforce what has been very successful in providing better quality service, those are the things we should be aggressively pursuing.

The constituents who I represent want to feel comfortable that they can make the connection. The best way to make that connection is by looking at what we have done in the budget and allocate serious resources that will better enable our civil service to deliver the types of services they, too, want to deliver.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, every time I rise in the House, I am always thinking about representing the people in my riding of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and doing a good job of defending their interests.

I decided to run for office in order to improve the day-to-day lives of my constituents and to stand up for their rights.

In the case of the motion before the House today, I unfortunately do not believe that it would truly defend the interests of Canadians. I am not saying that the member did not have their interests at heart or that he did not intend to defend them. However, the proposed motion misses the mark.

I will explain why, in my opinion, Motion No. 43 must be rejected. First, the motion debated would not require the Canada Revenue Agency to provide better service. On the contrary, it would fuel poor relations between agency employees and the public.

The public currently has mechanisms it can use to deal with grievances or to complain about service. When dissatisfied, the public can file a complaint through the CRA complaint resolution process or with the Office of the Taxpayers' Ombudsman.

I will get back to the Office of the Taxpayers' Ombudsman, but I want to talk more about the changes proposed in the motion and about why we should reject it.

Under the motion's proposed changes to articles 4, 8, and 9 of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, public servants would face potential legal action regarding the services they provide to the public; the changes would also promote an unhealthy climate at the agency.

This motion would amend the articles of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, so that if a Canadian found that the agency had failed to adhere to one of its 16 principles, the taxpayer could take the agency to court. If this motion were to pass, agents could become potential targets. They would be exposed to countless legal proceedings.

The Taxpayer Bill of Rights sets out 16 rights, and it is based on the values of the agency, which are professionalism, respect, integrity, and collaboration. It sets out how Canadians have the right to be treated and sets out what they have the right to expect from the agency.

I have had to deal with the CRA, as have the staff in my riding office who help constituents resolve problems at the federal level every day. We are therefore well aware that the agency always keeps in mind the high standards of accuracy, professionalism, courtesy, and fairness when serving the public.

When a person thinks that one or more of his or her rights have been violated or is dissatisfied with the service received from the CRA, that person is invited to file a service-related complaint as part of the CRA's complaint resolution process. If still not satisfied once the complaint has been investigated, that person can contact the taxpayers' ombudsman and ask her to review the complaint. There are already mechanisms in place and they work.

I promised to come back to the Office of the Taxpayers' Ombudsman. When I read Motion No. 43, I was surprised to see that the Conservatives want to change the powers and mandate of the Office of the Taxpayers' Ombudsman. I want to remind the House that that position was created by the Conservatives in 2007.

Need I remind members that the Conservatives were in office in 2007? They therefore had the means, the authority, and countless opportunities to make any changes they thought were necessary. Now, all of a sudden, the Conservatives have had an epiphany and want to protect taxpayers. Why now, almost 10 years later?

In 2007, the Conservatives therefore created the position of a taxpayers' ombudsman, who is supposed defend the interests of Canadians, but they failed to give the position all the tools needed to do so. Now that they are no longer in power, suddenly they want to give the ombudsman the tools she needs to do her job. If they truly cared about standing up for Canadians, they could have given the Office of the Taxpayers' Ombudsman all the necessary tools any number of times.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives were always attacking our officials and our public services. By bringing forward the motion, they are trying to cast doubt on the quality and integrity of the services our public servants provide to Canadians. I find that completely unacceptable.

I for one am extremely proud of and grateful for the work our public servants do. In fact, I would like to say thank you to them.

As an aside, this week happens to be National Public Service Week, from June 12 to 18.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank them for their work and their dedication. Every day, our public servants from coast to coast do high-quality work that reflects their professionalism, and we thank them sincerely. The problem is not the quality of the service that public servants are providing, but rather the resources they have to provide those services.

The ombudsman's powers are limited to evaluating service delivery. The ombudsman is explicitly forbidden from reviewing the administration or enforcement of program legislation, other than to the extent that the legislation or policy relates to service matters.

The ombudsman is not on the taxpayer's side or on the agency's. The ombudsman's mandate is to provide an impartial review of unresolved complaints from taxpayers about service. The ombudsman reviews service-related complaints to determine whether taxpayers received accurate, clear, and complete information. The ombudsman reviews the matter and recommends corrective measures if necessary.

This approach makes it possible for individuals to avoid an endless, complex, and very costly process. This fair and efficient system ensures the same rights for all Canadians, not just those with the means to take matters to court.

The NDP believes that it is possible to improve the services that the Canada Revenue Agency provides to Canadians. To do so, we believe that the government must provide more resources to the agency so it can provide better services to the public and ensure the accuracy of the information it shares with all Canadians.

We encourage the government to make the necessary investments and we are prepared to work with the government to find potential solutions in order to improve services for all our constituents.

The government should provide more resources to the Canada Revenue Agency so it can improve its services and be as fair as possible. The NDP has always fought for high-quality, accessible service for all. The Canada Revenue Agency still has a lot of work to do in that regard. We encourage the government to make the necessary investment.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to speak in the chamber. I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge for the motion. I believe my colleague tabled the motion with the best of intentions and great practicality.

I would like to say up front that I am profoundly disappointed by the tone of the last two speeches that were partisan in nature rather than realistic about what actually happens in our constituency offices. All the members in the House, once they have had just a few months of experience, know, although there might be some differences, that one of the number one areas that all of us deal with are constituents who have concerns with the Canada Revenue Agency. Those concerns end up being very emotional for them. It is very emotional for anyone whenever there are concerns with their bank account and their pocketbook. The member for Calgary Rocky Ridge is simply trying to do the best he can in a motion to the finance committee to ensure that some of those concerns are addressed.

In the multitude of concerns that come into our constituency offices, fortunately, with a couple of phone calls, sometimes with faxes, these situations can be cleared up. We actually have to use a fax machine in order to communicate with Canada Revenue Agency. My colleague over here seems to think we cannot have any improvements. We are still using a fax machine to communicate with the Canada Revenue Agency, so there are some improvements we could make. Fortunately, most of the time, with a couple of faxes and some phone calls, most of the situations are cleared up.

However, as the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge illustrated so well on April 18 with the stories of Irv from British Columbia, Doug from Alberta, and Janet from Ontario, there are times when the Canada Revenue Agency has wronged Canadians and stubbornly refuses to correct its errors. Even worse, it causes significant financial and emotional strain on Canadian taxpayers. It is true it does not happen often, but when we look at the details and circumstances of the stories illustrated by Irv, Doug, and Janet, our goal should be that it should never happen. This is why we have a taxpayers' ombudsman and a taxpayers' bill of rights. On that we can all agree, and for good reasons.

What Motion No. 43 is seeking to do is simply ask the Standing Committee on Finance to study ways to establish an enforceable duty of care from CRA to all Canadians by taking five very reasonable steps. One would think that is fair enough.

As Canada Day approaches, we know Canadians are mindful that we are all indeed very blessed and fortunate to live in this great land. It is a privilege that was hard won by the courageous young women and men who defended our values in two world wars, Korea, Afghanistan, and many peacekeeping missions. It is a privilege that continues to be earned today by our women and men in uniform.

With the privilege of citizenship comes the duty to pay taxes so that our society can function in the caring, compassionate way we all want it to function. I do not believe Canadians object to paying taxes when they believe they are fair and instituted democratically and when governments of any level respect the hard work that provided those tax dollars, and spend the money wisely according to that respect.

Fair is fair. Canadians are known around the world for fairness and compassion. That is why I take exception, along with my colleagues, to the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue in debate of this motion on April 18. The parliamentary secretary noted the $185-million investment in telephone technology and easier-to-understand correspondence at CRA. We accept that as good, but we do not accept that as enough. Those are well-meaning and reasonable improvements, but they are not mutually exclusive with exploring ways the taxpayers' bill of rights can be enhanced with an enforceable duty of care.

Further, the parliamentary secretary levelled a familiar accusation our way, stating that the Conservatives are smearing public servants again. We heard that here again tonight. Well, that is just a bunch of balderdash. The vast majority of our federal officials are dedicated to serving Canadians. I have mentioned this on innumerable occasions, and so have my colleagues. We have also said all along that the vast majority of Canadians file and dutifully pay their taxes without incident. However, that does not preclude a study of continuous improvement. That is all we are asking for here. That is not anti-public servant. That is pro-taxpayer. Perhaps most arrogantly, he said this is a solution in search of a problem that does not exist.

Well, I think he needs to visit some of our offices more often. Canadian taxpayers who have survived ordeals with CRA that have impacted their health, their finances, and their homes would disagree vehemently.

I reject the notion that CRA, or any other government body, is beyond reproach, unable to make a mistake, or above the law. When someone is wronged, is it unreasonable to expect a dignified and expedient resolution? When many individual taxpayers, citizens, and permanent residents provide tens of thousands of dollars in revenue to the Government of Canada, should they not expect more?

Let us look at what the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge is asking the Standing Committee on Finance to do over the next 18 months and put it in perspective.

All of us here have had some interaction with the health care system in Canada during the course of our lifetimes, and hopefully most here, and the majority of Canadians, have been blessed not to have had too much interaction with the system. While there are always concerns and issues, we know that the public health care system is a source of pride for Canadians.

For the purpose of illustration, let me compare what we are asking for in this motion to a critically ill patient in a Canadian hospital asking the same of the hospital's ombudsperson.

We are asking for an enforceable duty of care between the CRA and individual taxpayers. Most hospitals already have such a code, and certainly the professionals who run them, the doctors and nurses, absolutely do. This is very reasonable.

We are asking for the insertion of reasonable and necessary steps to avoid vexatious, malicious, and grossly negligent actions. In health care, this is a called good bedside manner, quality administration, and avoiding malpractice. These are all good, reasonable things to do, especially when it is a matter of life and death.

We are asking to empower the Taxpayers' Ombudsman. By comparison, in a health care setting, a patient ombudsman is automatically respected and is given the deference she or he is due. In more serious situations, where there is medical power of attorney, it is enforceable by law.

We are asking for service matters to be dealt with in a timely manner. In medicine, time is always of the essence, and again, that is not unreasonable.

These are just four comparisons. However, I believe that all members can see the point. This is not a solution in search of a problem, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue so arrogantly put it. This is as reasonable a code for taxpayers as it is for patients, and we should aspire to and embrace this level of care.

The Standing Committee on Finance would have 18 months to study best practices, consider the best approach, and consult with experts, which is entirely doable in 18 months. All we need is the political will to stand up for taxpayers.

That is why I urge all members who believe in serving and representing their constituents who have come to see them in regard to CRA members, who believe in the best nature of Canadians who pay their taxes in support of the privilege and honour of citizenship, and who also believe in fairness for taxpayers to vote yes to this motion.

This motion would give the Standing Committee on Finance the mandate to support good customer service and accountability. That is what we are asking for. It is a reasonable request that this motion be approved by the House so that the standing committee can do the work and make good and reasonable improvements to the Canada Revenue Agency for all Canadians.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the member for Flamborough—Glanbrook, the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London, and the member for Calgary Shepard as well for the excellent speeches that they have delivered in support of my motion.

Motion No. 43 sets out to protect Canadian individuals, families, and companies from rare but potentially devastating incidents of gross negligence on the part of the Canada Revenue Agency. It seeks to instruct the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance to investigate and report on the best way to implement an enforceable duty of care owed by CRA to taxpaying Canadians. The motion recognizes the vast power the CRA has over individuals, families, and businesses, and so seeks to give the latter some recourse in a case of egregious abuse by the former. This is a common sense approach to a rare but nevertheless real problem.

Given the nature of the motion, which is only concerned with protecting Canadians from potential harm, it is disappointing that the other major parties in this Parliament appear to believe that acts of gross negligence by a powerful government agency are not a problem. They appear to consider it beneath the attention of elected representatives to ensure that honest Canadians do not lose their livelihoods, their homes, their health, and all that they have worked hard to achieve due to an egregious error by the tax collector.

Unfortunately the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue has taken the position that the CRA complaint resolution systems are just fine as they are and that abuses are adequately addressed by existing internal mechanisms and perhaps any lingering service complaints could be just cleared up by additional money. This is both shamefully naive and completely misses the point of the motion. Motion No. 43 does not aim to replace the internal complaint and objection process. It addresses cases of gross negligence, abuse, malice, and frivolity, which the internal systems as they exist cannot handle.

Neither I nor my motion cast aspersions on CRA's internal objection and redress mechanisms, nor do I or my motion deny the good work done by the dedicated and professional employees of the CRA. The troubleshooting team members who help with our constituents typically provide first-rate service, but even if they can help correct issues for the most part between CRA and constituents, they cannot order redress for ruined lives when cases of gross negligence occur. This happens rarely, but nevertheless it does occur.

Along with clearer communication, the Liberals promised to make CRA more client-friendly and transparent, yet they appear opposed to a measure to keep the tax collector accountable to the taxpayer. What could be more client-friendly than enshrining in law a duty of care requiring CRA to consider Canadians' interests?

The Liberals talk about improving the taxpaying experience but when we give them a gift-wrapped opportunity to keep their own election promise to do so, the parliamentary secretary calls it a solution in search of a problem. As much as I may approve of Liberal imposed measures to make the CRA easier to interact with, a case of gross negligence cannot be solved by making the forms easier to understand.

Equally disappointing are the statements made by members of the NDP, who claim to be defenders of ordinary Canadians and yet can always be counted upon to put the interests of public employees ahead of the interests of members of the Canadian public.

My colleagues on the left of these benches first tried to derail this motion on weak procedural grounds that were actually a repudiation of their parliamentary prerogatives as fellow private members. Then the member who spoke earlier, as well as the member for Jonquière who spoke in April, and shamefully also now the member for Winnipeg North, attacked the motion by mischaracterizing it as an attack on government workers when the motion is simply an accountability measure to protect Canadians.

We were elected to the House to legislate. Are the workers in the executive branch not there to execute the laws passed by Parliament? Is it not an MP's role to set standards of behaviour for government agencies? If we do not do it, who will? That is our job. I do not know why members of the NDP and some members apparently of the Liberal Party as well want the government and its agencies to be unaccountable. Do they not understand why they are here?

Let me conclude by mentioning that members of the House have an opportunity before them to support a motion that would ensure a powerful government agency is accountable to the individual Canadians it serves and not just to the crown. They can fulfill the aspirations contained in the taxpayers bill of rights and ensure that Canadian taxpayers can be made whole if they become victims of gross negligence.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion. May I dispense with reading the motion again?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) read text of motion to House.]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 22, 2016, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Air Transportation

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, tonight, I would like to once again call upon the government to reverse a decision it made on November 12, 2015, to overrun a city of Toronto process to determine the future of the Billy Bishop Airport.

This issue remains relevant. The Liberals can still choose to remove their veto and allow the city of Toronto and Ports Toronto to move forward in their process to decide on the future of the island airport. I would like to take this opportunity to respond to a number of comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport during a previous debate.

She noted that reopening the act would allow any capable jet aircraft to use the airport. The member opposite should know that reopening the tripartite agreement would not allow an unlimited number of jumbo jet aircraft to land at the island airport. Reopening the agreement would have no bearing on the noise allowance at the airport, the number of daily landing slots, or the daily curfew, unless all the parties listed in the agreement chose to amend these.

If an airline cannot operate within the city of Toronto's strict rules governing the airport, its aircraft should not be allowed to land. The parliamentary secretary also erroneously claimed that the sole reason for supporting the reopening the tripartite agreement was to benefit Bombardier.

I support reopening the tripartite agreement for the following reasons.

The city of Toronto should have the primary say in determining whether the airport should be allowed to expand and lift the jet ban. As a former mayor, I believe that I understood the needs and concerns of my community better than the federal government did. If the member opposite is so convinced that Toronto City Council is opposed to the airport expanding its runway and lifting the jet ban, she should have no issue with allowing it to have that vote.

Airports help create economic and industrial hubs that create jobs and increased opportunities for local businesses and residents. That is why nearly every Canadian city is trying to bring new carriers to their airport. I am sure all of the Liberal members who regularly fly to Ottawa from downtown Toronto can vouch for the convenience of a centrally located airport that serves many destinations. Businesses take advantage of this, and that is what drives jobs and economic growth.

I support the airport expansion because I believe our regulations should keep up with new technology. Aircraft are much quieter today than they were 30 years ago, and regulations governing airports should reflect that reality.

The parliamentary secretary has stated on a number of occasions that she supports getting rid of the Air Canada Public Participation Act because the aerospace sector has changed and the nearly 30-year-old act is consequently out of date. She may be interested to know that the tripartite agreement is actually older than the Air Canada Public Participation Act. By her logic, the tripartite agreement should be reopened or shelved.

In conclusion, if the parliamentary secretary is so confident that Toronto City Council supports the minister's 88-character tweet, will she allow it to determine the future of its local airport?

[Kate Young, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek has asked once again why the government did not support the expansion of Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport.

As has been said on several occasions already, this government had the courage to make a decision regarding Billy Bishop while the previous government did not. Further, this government believes, as has also been said before, that the current tripartite agreement strikes the right balance between commercial and community interests, including the evolution of the waterfront. With a jet capable airport close by, it still believes there was no compelling case to change the current approach.

Repeating the rationale for the government's decision should be unnecessary. This government has considered the interests of the people who reside in the vicinity of the airport, who work in the area, and the much broader population of Toronto who come to the waterfront and the Toronto Islands for a break to enjoy themselves.

The Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport has been doing well. It has grown remarkably in a short period of time. Porter Airlines, the primary carrier operating from that airport, has demonstrated remarkable entrepreneurial spirit, and will continue to do so. I am sure it will continue to show its initiative and determination to succeed.

I am equally sure Bombardier will show its initiative and determination to succeed. As has been said before, the new Bombardier C Series is a remarkable aircraft. Report after report takes that view. It needs to get out into the world and show everyone its capabilities. It will soon have a chance to do just that. The C Series will be entering commercial service with Swiss Airlines in just a few months. Air Canada has announced a significant order for the C Series aircraft. These events are, we are sure, just the beginning of a bright future for that aircraft.

That does not mean this government is going to ignore Bombardier and its employees. The government has said several times in the past that it will continue to work with Bombardier to understand its situation and future plans, and it will.

The C Series is a great aircraft. To tie its future to a decision regarding a single airport is not only incorrect, it also shows a singular lack of imagination and initiative on the part of those making that connection.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is obvious the parliamentary secretary has been left to defend an indefensible decision made by the Minister of Transport, which was made to appeal to very few at the expense of so many.

This brand of not in my backyard politics that the minister is leading, and his parliamentary secretary is defending, will only lead to economic stagnation within Canada.

If the parliamentary secretary and the minister she serves are so concerned with the impact of aircraft noise on residents of Toronto, what other action will we see from the government for people who live perhaps under a 24-hour final approach path for Pearson airport?

[Kate Young, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, following the comments from the hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, I am pleased to reiterate that on December 18, 2015, it was announced that Bombardier had received type certification of its C Series aircraft.

Transport Canada's approval of the design, airworthiness limitations, and operating conditions of the aircraft means that Bombardier can now take the important final steps, including seeking international approvals and crew training, to deliver the C Series to its customers worldwide. I am sure this will be a key step in bringing the C Series to the broader market and increasing its use by airlines everywhere.

International Trade

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am here to continue the debate on the trans-Pacific partnership that has been taking place in this chamber and across Canada thanks to the work of the member for Essex on the NDP side, who has done a terrific job on this matter in promoting the rights of Canadians.

In this chamber, I raise the concerns with the TPP. This deal would put us again in a position of a greater trade deficit. What I mean by that is that we would venture into an agreement that would undermine the value-added goods and services that we produce in Canada for Canadians and those abroad, and would allow the shipping in of other goods and services that would be of lesser value. I will speak specifically to the auto industry in this particular case.

In the auto industry, the deal is so bad. The United States is our trading partner with NAFTA, where we have a fully integrated auto-manufacturing system in place. For example, our neighbours and the neighbours across from us both contribute directly to the well-being of our communities. In the TPP agreement, our neighbour to the south has a 25-year exemption on auto because the deal is so bad for auto manufacturing. The United States gets 25 years to plan for this intrusion into the market.

Those value-added jobs are very important. They are the ones that we are trying to win back because they pay pensions, they have money for families, they are growing the middle class, they have benefits, and they lead the world in work-safety regulations. What do we get? As my colleague from Hamilton has noted, the U.S. gets 25 years and we would get five years, and we have an integrated market.

The reason I brought up the integrated market is because vehicles such as those built in Windsor go across the border, back and forth, to produce the minivan, for example, from the plant that is arguably the most successful manufacturing plant since the Second World War. It provides hundreds of millions of dollars to the coffers of this nation and also great employment for workers, money for the United Way, and more important, Canadian innovation that is also spread across other sectors because one auto job counts for about seven to nine other jobs. Those jobs are at risk.

The U.S. gets 25 years, so where are they actually going to go for replant development? Where are they going to go to get the parts and the service and the structures? They will be enticed to go to the United States because it has 20-plus years of exemptions for exporting and importing that we will not get.

I ask members to think about this. Malaysia got 12 years. Our government is promoting a deal where Malaysia outmanoeuvred us by ensuring that they had a better, bolder agreement of 12 years. If we were playing the Malaysians in handball, I could say they might have some competitive spirit there. However, when it comes to innovation, science, technology, and value-added jobs that have human rights, labour rights, gender rights, and most important, contribute to our economy as a whole and to our United Way organizations from coast to coast to coast, I say we defend those workers.

These people are telling them, “Good luck, see you later”.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to get up in the House this evening, on the first Italian day on the Hill.

This government recognizes the immense value and contributions of the manufacturing and high-tech industries in Canada that bring products to market, so I understand very well the hon. member's question, and I thank him for it.

As mentioned in the House, the government supports free trade, but we are serious about wanting to consult and hear the views of Canadians and parliamentarians on the merits of the TPP and whether or not it is a good agreement for Canada, before deciding whether or not to ratify it.

The five-year provision that the hon. member cited in the auto industry is one example of a provision that has been heavily criticized in certain quarters. There are other provisions that have been promoted in certain quarters. We need to get to the bottom of it. The government pledged to take a responsible approach to examining the details of the trans-Pacific partnership and assessing their impact, and that is precisely what we are doing.

The Minister of International Trade has engaged in consultations across the country, as have I as parliamentary secretary, and the government has committed to bring forward the TPP to a debate and discussion here in the House to hear from all members of Parliament representing the people of Canada. The Minister of International Trade is also working closely with her colleagues whose portfolios could be affected by the TPP, and together they are engaging with Canadian stakeholders to hear what they have to say. This is a whole-of-government effort.

Since November, the Government of Canada has held over 250 consultation sessions with over 450 stakeholders, including all the provinces and territories, industry representatives, industry associations, civil society, think tanks, indigenous groups, academics, students, unions, and the general public.

The government has already begun outreach efforts with regard to the trans-Pacific partnership in many Canadian cities, including Vancouver, Toronto, Guelph, Montreal, Quebec City, Edmonton, Halifax, Moncton, Charlottetown, Oakville, Windsor, Winnipeg, and Regina.

The Minister of International Trade also held a general meeting in Montreal last week in order to find out what the public thinks about the trans-Pacific partnership. This evening, she is meeting with Torontonians on the same subject.

In parallel, the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade is currently studying the TPP on its own and is holding consultations with Canadians across the country as part of its outreach to Canadians. Those who have views to share are encouraged to submit written comments to the committee for its consideration.

The government signed the TPP to ensure that Canada remains at the table and that the Government of Canada is able to continue consulting with Canadians. As the Minister of International Trade explained in her open letter to Canadians, signing the TPP was only a first step and does not equal ratification. Signing the agreement has allowed us to continue these consultations with Canadians and to hear all views before we consider whether the TPP is in Canada's best interests.

This gives us the opportunity to find out what the various sectors and the general public think about the partnership.

That is exactly why we are holding these consultations. We have heard from those who support the TPP, those who have serious concerns about it, and those who are still undecided.

As we continue our consultations, we look forward to updating this House.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for mentioning Italian Day. Ironically, Italians helped build the auto industry in my community. On six blocks of Erie Street, one can find wonderful Italian cuisine, but the people are at risk of job losses due to the fact that the current government and previous governments have not supported the auto industry. There is no national program. It was the Liberals signing NAFTA that killed the Autopact, which helped build this country.

It is important to note that it has not taken too long for the blue labels to be removed from the shelved speeches, which have now resurfaced with red labels. The members actually speak the line of the government versus a real debate in the House of Commons.

The reality is that they signed this agreement and it now holds. They cannot change the agreement. Consultation, as it is called, is nothing more than basically hearing back with no input.

I will conclude with this. The parliamentary secretary should get to the bottom of it. That is what is going to be—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade.