Debates of May 30th, 2018

Bill C-74—Notice of time allocation motion

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in this House today to discuss Bill C-74, Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1.

It is no secret that with our 2018 budget, our government has committed to putting people first and ensuring equal opportunity and fairness for all Canadians. Part of that commitment means taking steps forward to advancing equality, especially for women. This is not only the right thing to do but also the smart thing to do, because we know that equality between Canadian women and men will lead to greater prosperity for all Canadians.

We are doing this through a number of initiatives, including introducing a new employment insurance parental sharing benefit to support more equal parenting roles, as well as other initiatives to support greater participation of women in the workforce. We will also be putting forward proactive pay equity legislation to ensure that women and men in the federally regulated public and private sectors receive equal pay for work of equal value. These are just some of the budget 2018 measures aimed at promoting greater gender equality in Canada.

It should also be noted that in the spirit of putting people first, we are also taking steps to improve how our government delivers its services to all Canadians. We understand that Canadians expect services to be high quality, accessible, secure, and digitally enabled.

When it comes to the services provided by Employment and Social Development Canada, more commonly known as ESDC, we strive to meet and exceed those expectations. Since taking office, our government has listened to Canadians and worked hard to ensure that they get the best services possible. These efforts are reflected in the investments made in each of our budgets, and this budget is no different.

Budget 2018 will enable ESDC to explore modern approaches to service delivery, beginning with employment insurance. This budget committed to providing stable and predictable funding of up to $90 million over three years, starting in 2018-19, for employment insurance claims processing and service delivery for all Canadians.

Building on earlier investments, we have proposed an additional $127.7 million over three years to sustain service capacity and improve accessibility to call centre agents so that Canadians can receive timely and accurate information and assistance with their El benefits. These services and channels are vital to Canadians, and it is of the utmost importance that we support a modern service delivery system that functions smoothly and works for all.

In budget 2018, we promised to make significant new investments to bolster federal government operations. We made this promise because want to ensure that all Canadians receive the services they need and deserve, especially people from more vulnerable populations. This includes doing more to better serve indigenous peoples in Canada. That is why we committed to providing funding to help more indigenous peoples access the full range of federal social benefits, including the Canada child benefit, the Canada pension plan, and old age security. We will be accomplish this by expanding outreach efforts to indigenous communities, and by conducting pilot outreach activities for urban indigenous communities.

We also know that Canadians rely on a broad range of supports in their communities. To make sure that people get the help they need, the Government of Canada provides funding to organizations across the country that deliver social services to Canadians. We are talking about services provided to vulnerable populations such as indigenous peoples, low-income Canadians, LGBTQ2 Canadians, newcomers, seniors, and persons with disabilities.

As announced in our latest budget, we will reallocate $7.8 million over five years to increase awareness and understanding of available funding, and help organizations that serve vulnerable populations build much needed capacity.

With Bill C-74, we are also making important amendments to the Department of Employment and Social Development Act that will improve how Service Canada serves Canadians. Each year, ESDC spends more than $122 billion on programs and services for Canadians. That includes employment insurance payments, the Canada pension plan, old age security, the guaranteed income supplement, and an additional $1.9 billion dollars in grants and contributions.

Service Canada is an important partner in this work. Currently, the Department of Employment and Social Development Act provides Service Canada with the authority to deliver only ESDC programs and services. It does not provide for Service Canada to deliver other federal government programs and services or for delivery partnerships. Simply put, it just does not make sense.

We want to make sure that Canadians can benefit from a service delivery model that is better integrated so that they can more easily access the full range of federal services available to them. We can accomplish this by allowing other departments to use the Service Canada network.

Right now, for this to happen, the government must provide authority on a case-by-case basis. This approach hinders ESDC's ability to carry out its current service delivery responsibilities and to respond to evolving partnership opportunities. The changes we are proposing in Bill C-74 will fix this. The bill proposes to give Service Canada the authority to provide services to the public on behalf of partners, including federal government institutions and other levels of government. Specifically, Bill C-74 proposes to clarify accountability between ESDC and service partners related to the management of Canadians' personal information.

The bill would also allow ESDC and service partners to recognize and use the Canada Revenue Agency's business number to manage business identity and allow ESDC to recover costs from and spend revenues on behalf of service delivery partners. For Canadians and Canadian businesses, this will mean better and more convenient access to the services they need.

The proposed amendments we are seeking through Bill C-74 would broaden the minister's mandate to provide service delivery for partners and help deliver better services to Canadians, including online services. With these changes, ESDC will be able to partner with federal institutions, provinces, territories, municipalities, and specified indigenous organizations without holding up the services that Canadians need and deserve.

I encourage all members of the House to support Bill C-74 and the much-needed amendments to the Department of Employment and Social Development Act. Let us continue to ensure that Canadians receive the kind of services they deserve: high-quality, accessible, secure, and digitally enabled.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate my fellow member from British Columbia and his presentation tonight. It is always good to have different views on these subjects.

The member mentioned at the beginning of his speech that he was in support of a benefit that would allow for a spouse to extend benefits to encourage both partners to spend time with their child in its first year. However, the leader of the official opposition, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, has put forward a private member's bill that would allow a couple to retain more of their income. It would also allow a single parent who is struggling to raise a child by herself or himself to be able to do so.

However, the benefit that the member mentioned would do absolutely nothing for single parents. Does he not think there should be more supports for couples at that very important time, and will he vote for the leader of the official opposition's private member's bill?

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, what my colleague on the other side fails to recognize is the effect of the Canada child benefit. It far outweighs the program you are referring to.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the member that he is to address comments and questions to the Chair.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Canada child benefit has been proven to give more benefits to families with children. That is real action. That is what parents and families need to have to be able to get along today in this country.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. It is always a joy to listen to you.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members to address questions and comments to the Chair. I know it is getting late, but I am sure they can do it.

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

Madam Speaker, the Liberals will be putting $17.3 million into indigenous outreach when it comes to tax filing. This has a lot to do with the Canada child benefit and those types of things. We know the importance of lifting children out of poverty, and we recognize, from the HUMA committee, which the member sits on, that the indigenous community is a very vulnerable group.

How is the government planning on being respectful to taxpayers? I recognize that this is a very important group, but how are we going to have measurements on this to make sure that the $17.3 million to get people to file their taxes is going to hit the target? I find this an excessive amount for people to just file their taxes.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, to answer this question, we have to look at the challenge. What we found in HUMA, for instance, was that a lot of vulnerable populations were not even aware of some of the programs that were available to them. Part of this budget will be used to educate the indigenous populations and the vulnerable populations that they actually have access to programs and funds. That is what is more important.

We know that seniors have to apply for their OAS and GIS benefits, and a lot of them do not. This is one of the programs we are hoping to fix in this budget.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is indeed an honour to rise again and join the debate on Bill C-74.

Before I wrote my speech, I wanted to do a bit of research to remind myself exactly what the Prime Minister had promised regarding the use of omnibus bills. An interesting thing occurred.

When I googled the name of the Prime Minister and then used the word “promise”, the search screen auto-filled with a massive number of different promises from the Prime Minister. Guess what? They were all broken promises, every single one of them, because that is what the Prime Minister seems to do. He promises things he clearly has no intention of delivering on, and this is no different. Allow me to repeat this one. He said, “Stephen Harper has also used omnibus bills to prevent Parliament from properly reviewing and debating his proposals.” The Prime Minister promised his Liberal government would “bring an end to this undemocratic practice”, yet here we are. The Prime Minister is doing the complete opposite of what he promised he would do.

A constituent of mine recently suggested that the Prime Minister was basically a real-life Pinocchio. That comment troubles me. When we look Canadians sincerely in the eyes and we promise something that we have zero intention of delivering on, how do we let that go? How do we say “That's okay”?

Here is a case in point. Over in the finance committee, we were reviewing this omnibus bill as best we could. Lo and behold, what did we find buried in it? We found legislation that proposed to modify the Criminal Code so white-collar crime might more easily go unpunished. Seriously, why is that in there?

I have defended governments because of the complex state and wanting to do things. Sometimes they have to be able to change multiple pieces of legislation so an omnibus bill may be okay. For example, paying the remuneration for justices probably can be added in as a measure because I do not believe there would be time, respectful of the House, to table that. I have defended the previous government and I have given the current government a lot on that as well. However, here is the thing. The Liberal members of the finance committee had absolutely no idea this corporate crime get out of jail for free clause was in the budget implementation act.

I have a great amount of respect for my fellow members of the finance committee on the government side. We have a productive and good relationship. I am proud of that fact even though we found this questionable clause. At the same time, it concerns me greatly that the Liberal government is proposing serious changes like this. Not only do the Liberals try to hide it in a budget implementation bill, they do not even tell their own caucus about it.

Who is really calling the shots and running the government? Why would it keep its own caucus in the dark? To be fair, I am not going to say that the Liberals are soft on corporate crime or that the secret payoff is intended to help Liberal corporate insider friends, but others are saying these exact things. In the absence of information there is misinformation. When something is intentionally hidden from view, people will speculate there must be a reason it is hidden. These things undermine the integrity of our justice system when it comes to prosecuting white-collar corporate crime.

I will give the benefit of the doubt to the government here. I do not believe the intent of this proposed legislative change is to help out white-collar criminals. In fact, I am certain there are arguments to be made why some believe this measure is a good thing in helping crack down on white-collar crime. However, we will not be having that debate because this clause is not before the justice committee where it belongs. That, of course, is because someone in the Prime Minister's Office thought it was a good idea to bury this proposal in the budget implementation act instead of in a justice bill where it belongs.

Bill C-74 is a budget implementation act omnibus bill. Bill C-75 is a criminal justice reform omnibus bill of 300 pages. It makes no sense that the Liberals would put this provision in Bill C-74 unless they wanted to evade scrutiny. Not one single witness came to committee to talk about this. That is a failure, either of us as parliamentarians or because someone on the government side thought the Liberals could pull a fast one.

Before moving on, I would like to thank the members of the finance committee for the collective work we have done exposing this questionable piece of legislation. We do what we can, and we try to do a good job.

Another troubling aspect of the budget implementation bill is the fact that it does not place Canada on a path to a balanced budget by 2019. That is another broken promise by the Prime Minister, which begs the question why the Prime Minister made that promise in the first place. Is it because he believes that a balanced budget is a good thing, or because he believes that others think it is a good thing and he will basically say anything that would help him win votes? We do not know the answer to that question. However, it is not unlike the promise “While governments grant permits for resource development, only communities can grant permission.” We all know how that broken promise is turning out, which leads to my next question.

Out of the blue, the Prime Minister promised to borrow another $4.5 billion so he can politically control the timeline of the Kinder Morgan pipeline. Where exactly is this money coming from? It is a massive amount of money, yet it is not anywhere in the budget. Further assuming that the Prime Minister actually intends to build the Trans Mountain pipeline, it will surely cost another $7 billion or more. Combined, that is over $11 billion. That is more than the modest $10-billion deficit the Prime Minister promised.

Nowhere in this budget document is that out-of-the-blue spending referred to. This is all so that the Prime Minister can buy himself out of another broken promise, while at the same time breaking other promises. It gets complicated. With so many broken promises, one begins to lose track. This is not unlike his $7-billion slush fund, which the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said contains “incomplete information and weaker spending controls”. That is $7 billion of borrowed money, with zero information on how that money will be spent, and we are going into an election next year.

Meanwhile, the Liberal government is busy ramming through changes to the Elections Act that would limit what everyone else can spend pre-writ, except of course the Liberal government itself. How does anyone support that? Basically, we have a Prime Minister who has a well-documented history of being willing to promise anything to anyone to win votes, who will be armed with the equivalent of a $7-billion Visa card going into an election.

I have sympathy for the members opposite, because we all know that when anyone dares to vote against the Prime Minister on the Liberal side, there are serious consequences, despite those promises for free votes and sunny ways.

In closing, there is no possible way I can support the budget implementation bill. To be candid, I would have a hard time supporting it even if I sat on the government side of the House, because it breaks so many of the promises the Prime Minister made to Canadians, the same Prime Minister who, once upon a time, claimed he was worried about cynicism in Canadian politics.

I can think of no previous prime minister in the past few decades, since I started closely following federal politics, who has broken more promises to Canadians than the current Prime Minister. The most troubling part is that, more often than not, it is a “do as I say, not as I do” approach, much like this omnibus bill I will be voting against. It was bad when Stephen Harper did it as prime minister, but despite the fact that the current Prime Minister said he would bring an end to what he called an “undemocratic practice”, in reality he has taken it to a whole new level. From my perspective, that is not right. I look forward to hearing the comments from all members in this place.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Madam Speaker, we have 600,000 new jobs, most of them full time, and the lowest unemployment rate on record. Nine out of 10 families are better off under our Canada child benefit. Infrastructure is being built, including in the member's home region. This country is leading the G7 in growth, and the member dares compare this budget bill with budget bills of the past, bills that amended the Navigable Waters Protection Act and repealed the long-form census. He dares speak of omnibus legislation, when he is a member of the party that invented the term “omnibus legislation”.

If this is not a budget he can support, what on earth could he support, what kind of budget?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, the word “omnibus” in terms of parliamentary procedure means anytime one seeks to amend more than two acts at one time. Any act that does that would be described as omnibus.

When we did omnibus bills, as we did with our economic action plan, we actually took the part of the legislation that amended the Fisheries Act, for example, and sent it to the fisheries committee. When we did things on the environment, we sent it to the environment committee. Why did the government not send that division 20 dealing with the deferred prosecution agreements to the justice committee? It is because it does not want the scrutiny.

Lastly, when it comes to infrastructure, when we said we would do infrastructure, we did it. In Kelowna, where there are cost overruns happening in British Columbia, according to the article I read in the Kelowna Capital News, it is because there is so much infrastructure going to the same small amount of people who are to contract for it that it has caused inflation to go up.

When it comes to the jobs and the 40-year lows in the unemployment rate, that is because more people have left the job markets, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. When the government members say it is because of them, it is not. It is because people are getting older and retiring, or losing hope and not—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Mississauga—Erin Mills.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his very impassioned speech and his dedication to having open debate and prolonging debate. Why did he and his party try to kill the debate earlier today? Why not have had that dialogue and continue to talk about the issues that are important to Canadians?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, simply put, parliamentary democracy involves both the government trying to present an agenda and the opposition trying to question that agenda, and to use procedural tactics that are not available when one does not have a majority. As the opposition, obviously we will use tools to be able to raise dissent, just like we did last Friday when the government tried to move and change our schedule. We use the tools available to us.

If this member has the good fortune of being able to grace the opposition benches, and I hope she has it at some point, then she will begin to understand that these tools are for all parliamentarians to hold the government to account so that we have a better public policy process in the end, and not just to have the single will of one Prime Minister who is intent on breaking every promise he can. I really do hope that member will consider that before she ends up on this side.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's speech was very accurate and definitive. Could he expand on the $7 billion slush fund the government has? The economy looks like it is boiling along so well. Would he agree with me that the reason he probably does not hear any backlash from the backbenchers or the ministers in the government is that they all want a piece of that $7 billion?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to try to finish on a positive note. I served as the parliamentary secretary to the President of the Treasury Board in the last Parliament. The Treasury Board has an important function to make sure that when spending happens in government, there is proper oversight. The problem is when parliamentarians in this chamber cannot evaluate what those direct expenditures are for what the government proposes. The changes proposed in that particular section would blur the lines. Remember this, we hold the responsibility of making make sure that the powers and privileges of this House are maintained for the next generation of parliamentarians. It is important that we do that by opposing that—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

As we resume debate, I want to advise the next speaker that, unfortunately, I will have to stop the debate, but he will be able to continue at a later date.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Madam Speaker, it is indeed a privilege to be the final speaker in these final few minutes of Tuesday, May 30. When it comes to Canada's economy and the environment, our government has been absolutely clear that we believe the two go hand in hand. Canadians understand that pollution is not free. They understand, as we do, that the most effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to put a price on carbon pollution.

That is why we introduced the greenhouse gas pollution pricing act, part of the budget implementation act currently before this House. By giving businesses and households an incentive to innovate more and pollute less, we are fulfilling our commitment to invest in growth while respecting and helping to protect our shared environment.

This approach, investing in growth that strengthens and grows our middle class and helps people who are working hard to join it, is already paying off. Let us take a look at the results of our plan so far. The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Services highlighted some of these. Since the government was elected, more than 600,000 jobs have been created, most of them full-time. Canada's unemployment rate is at the lowest level we have seen in 40 years. Finally, since 2016, Canada has led the G7 in economic growth.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The next time this matter is before the House the member will have eight minutes and 40 seconds to finish his speech.

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

Canadian Heritage

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, in February, I rose in the House to ask the government to strengthen the legislation regarding Gatineau Park by establishing the park's boundaries in law and enshrining ecological integrity as a top priority for the management of the park.

At that time, the Prime Minister indicated that the government would work with the National Capital Commission to do “everything we can to protect this beautiful wilderness area for generations to come.” Unfortunately, thus far, those efforts have stopped short of the common sense measures I raised.

This year marks 80 years since Gatineau Park was established. Gatineau is one of the most diverse regions in Quebec and has enormous ecological value. The park is home to 50 mammal species, 230 species of birds, 50 tree species, and some 1,000 species of vascular plants. The park is also home to 125 species of conservation concern, including the Blanding's turtle and the eastern wolf. Also, 80% of all eastern red cedar trees in Quebec are in Gatineau Park.

In addition to its many ecological benefits, Gatineau Park also makes a significant economic and social contribution to the national capital region, receiving more than 2.6 million visits per year. If any members of Parliament have not yet been to the park, I encourage them to do so. They may even get there by bicycle. I know because I did that last year.

According to a study conducted by the National Capital Commission, the park generated approximately $241.5 million to the local economy from September 2015 to August 2016, including through such things as spending at local restaurants, on sports and recreational equipment or services, and on other shopping related to visiting the park.

It is clear that Gatineau Park has a special place in the hearts of many residents of our nation's capital region. However, despite all of its obvious benefits, the park does not have the same legislative protection as those afforded to our national parks system.

For nearly 50 years now, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society has been striving for stronger protections for Gatineau Park. Despite the park's ecological and social importance in this region, there are still no restrictions on development within the park. There are also no set borders for the park, meaning that its future is dependent upon whoever sits on the National Capital Commission Board at any given time.

While the boundaries of the park have been recognized through NCC policy and an order in council, they can still be amended without the same oversight as an act of Parliament would require for a national park. The NCC is renewing the park's master plan this year which is great, but there is no reason to wait until the master plan is complete to strengthen the park's legislative protections. These processes can occur in parallel.

The government has repeatedly reiterated its commitment to protecting 17% of our land by 2020. Rouge National Urban Park in the GTA has given us an example of what national park conservation in an urban environment can look like. Let us use this opportunity to follow that example and strengthen the legislative protections for Gatineau Park.

It is worth noting that at one time or another all parties have made commitments to protect Gatineau Park. Former NDP MP Nycole Turmel introduced a private member's bill in 2012 that would have established the park's boundaries in law and emphasized ecological protection in the management of the park. The Prime Minister and the Liberal party voted in favour of Ms. Turmel's bill when they were in the opposition.

When I raised this issue in February, the Prime Minister described Gatineau Park as “a true jewel in our national capital region.” He went on to say, “We will continue to work...to ensure that we are doing everything we can to protect—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, the time is up.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia for the question and for his interest in Gatineau Park.

Gatineau Park is a stunning natural conservation area located just minutes from the centre of our nation's capital. As the Prime Minister has said, the park's trails, forests, and lakes are truly a jewel of the capital region. With its diverse ecosystems and heritage features, Gatineau Park is a prime destination that attracts some 2.6 million visitors each year.

Conservation and preservation have been a top priority ever since Gatineau Park was created. The National Capital Commission works with all stakeholders in order to ensure that the park's resources are conserved while offering visitors environmentally friendly recreational experiences.

Gatineau Park's management plan, which was prepared by the NCC, establishes a vision of the park as a protected natural space managed mainly for conservation purposes. Recreation is secondary. Gatineau Park is the capital's conservation park.

As a result of this approach, all publicly held lands within Gatineau Park are reserved for park purposes. Any public infrastructure development is very carefully considered, with the overall goal of enhancing the conservation of the park's ecological integrity and cultural resources.

Furthermore, whenever possible, the NCC usually acquires privately owned properties located within the park boundaries for conservation reasons. In 2008, there were 405 private properties in Gatineau Park, covering an area of about 600 hectares. Since then, in accordance with its conservation goals for the park, the NCC has acquired more than a third of those properties. Today, there are just 344 private properties in the park, covering only 386 hectares.

The results of this emphasis on conservation have been positive. The 2016-17 “Report on Gatineau Park Ecosystems” found that the overall condition of the park is “good” and that this condition is stable. This is a clear improvement since the 2006 report, which found the park's condition to be “acceptable”.

As for the boundary issue, Gatineau Park has very clear and well-defined boundaries. They were officially established by the NCC's board of directors in 1997. In 2008, they were approved by the government as a legal basis for any future land acquisition by the NCC within the park. The organization manages the park based on those long-term boundaries.

To build on the successes achieved since 2005, the NCC is currently renewing the Gatineau Park master plan. Involving broad consultations with the public, local municipalities, the conservation community, user groups, and other stakeholder groups, the review process provides an opportunity to take the plan forward into the 21st century and preserve the health and integrity of the park for future generations.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is easy to go overtime when we are talking about Gatineau Park.

When the Prime Minister responded to my question in February, he said, “We will continue to work...to ensure that we are doing everything we can to protect this beautiful wilderness area for generations to come.”

As we celebrate 80 years of this natural treasure, will the government take the necessary steps to protect it for future generations? I will ask the question again. Will the government amend the National Capital Act to protect the ecological integrity of Gatineau Park and establish its boundaries in law?