Laurie Hawn

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, October 28th, 2013]

You earn it, Charlie.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2, October 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I was not privy to that particular conversation, so I cannot make a direct comment on that. The government consults very widely. Invariably, in doing those kinds of consultations, there is always going to be someone who says, “You didn't ask me”. That is a valid comment. The government tries very hard to consult as widely as possible. Part of that is people coming forward to say, “You need to hear from me, too”. It is not just a one-way street; it is a two-way street.

The government makes every effort to consult as widely as possible. Invariably, in an enterprise as big as the Government of Canada, as big as some of the things we are doing, someone is going to feel left out from time to time.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2, October 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very relevant question.

In Edmonton Centre, Kitchener and probably pretty much every place across the country, employers, especially small businesses, are looking desperately for people with trades skills. There are a lot of university-trained folks, and as good as a B.A. and B.Sc. might be, it does not really equip them to do some of the jobs we need doing. We have a country to build and we need skilled tradespeople. Small business is looking for them everywhere.

One thing the federal government has to do is provide leadership, and that is exactly what we have done in bringing forward the Canada job grant. I think the provinces will get on board one by one when they realize that. I know Alberta is being pressured and I am sure other provinces are being pressured by small businesses, saying, “Let's get on board here”. The federal government is providing leadership. They need to get on board because this is the right thing to do for the Canadian economy, it is the right thing to do for small business, and it is the right thing to do for Canadian workers.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2, October 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, Canada is an extremely diverse country and there are many things that go into making Canada a strong country.

In terms of the economy, part of that is a very sound legal system, a very sound justice system. Obviously, the pinnacle of that is the Supreme Court of Canada. Therefore, it is very important that we have, at all levels of the justice system, measures and the right kind of people in place to support the Canadian economy and the challenges that come before the Canadian economy, which may in fact also come before the courts.

While it may seem a bit too diverse for my friend, and I understand that, that is one of the reasons behind some of the measures that we have proposed.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2, October 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will say at the outset that I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga.

It is an honour to rise and address the House on budget 2013. I came to Ottawa from Edmonton Centre as part of this Conservative government. Since that time we have been both sound economic managers and prudent investors in all areas of government. We have lowered taxes to the lowest level in more than 50 years. The GST was cut from 7% to 6% to 5%. This has placed more money in the pockets of ordinary Canadians, where it belongs.

We have paid down $37 billion worth of debt between 2006 and 2008. During this time, we also invested in our armed forces, which were in desperate need of equipment and rebuilding after decades of darkness under previous governments.

It was not long, however, before trouble appeared on the horizon. In August 2007, the credit bubble burst. The United States officially went into a recession in January 2008. This was the worst recession to hit the world since the 1930s. Those were troubling times five years ago. However, in the face of trouble our government responded decisively.

On January 27, 2009, the Minister of Finance introduced the first phase of Canada's economic action plan. This budget was a $60 billion shot in the arm to the Canadian economy, including a $12 billion infrastructure investment and $20 billion worth of tax relief. As the Minister of Finance indicated at the time, these measures were targeted, timely and temporary. With an extra six-month extension, the stimulus funding wound down on October 31, 2011, as promised.

I am a Conservative, and I believe in balancing our budgets, lowering taxes, and individual initiative and enterprise. Canadians understand the importance of prudent fiscal management in their household budgets, and they expect the same from the government. I could not agree more. That is why I am pleased that our government has made fiscal prudence a priority.

I would like to speak to three of our government's fiscal priorities today, which budget 2013 keeps us on track to achieve. These priorities are the elimination of the deficit, introduction of balanced budget legislation as promised in the throne speech and paying down the federal debt while fostering a sound economic environment.

When Canada's economic action plan was initially introduced in 2009, we made it clear that deficits were not here to stay and neither was the stimulus. We acted, and deficits have been falling ever since. From a peak of $56 billion in 2009-10, it was reported on October 22 that the federal deficit had fallen to $18.9 billion for the 2012-13 fiscal year, coming in nearly $7 billion below forecast. We made it abundantly clear that the deficit elimination would not be done on the backs of provinces or seniors.

Budget 2013 builds on previous actions, with an additional $500 million in savings in 2013-14, rising to $2.3 billion in 2017-18, for a total of $8.4 billion over the next five years. When this is combined with actions taken since budget 2010, it means our government has announced savings that will reduce the deficit by more than $15 billion in 2014-15 and beyond. This will amount to cumulative savings of more·than $84 billion over the 2010-11 to 2017-18 period. More than 75% of these savings will result from measures to restrain the growth in direct program spending.

Some of these measures to control program spending were developed during the strategic and operating review, of which I was privileged to be a member. This review found savings of $5.2 billion in government operations, savings that will certainly contribute to not only eliminating the deficit but making government leaner and more efficient.

Direct program spending is projected to remain roughly at or below its 2010-11 level over the forecast horizon, 2017-18. However, federal transfers to individuals to provide important income support, such as old age security and employment insurance, and major transfers to other levels of government for social programs and health care will continue to grow over the forecast period.

With the recent Speech from the Throne, our Government again signalled our continuing belief in the importance of sound fiscal management by promising to introduce balanced budget legislation.

Government holds the keys to the federal treasury and with that comes the expectation that those resources will be spent and managed wisely. As we are all aware, these past five years have been anything but ordinary economic times. With sovereign debt crises in the eurozone, the fiscal cliff, sequester and government shutdown in the United States, it is clear that turbulent economic waters remain for the foreseeable future. However, a balanced budget is essential for the long-term financial health of the government and Canada and generates confidence in the Canadian economy.

We have promised to balance the budget by 2015. That promise we will keep, and we will go further. Our Government will enshrine into law its successful and prudent approach.

Our balanced budget legislation will require balanced budgets during normal economic times and concrete timelines for returning to balance in the event of an economic crisis.

I am pleased with this additional commitment to financial responsibility. However, to that end we must balance the budget, and budget 2013 keeps us on track to do so. We have promised to do so without raising tax. To do so we must reduce government spending.

Budget 2013 builds on these efforts to reduce government spending by announcing an additional $1.7 billion in ongoing savings, including examining departmental spending to ensure that government operations are managed as efficiently as possible; reducing travel costs through the use of technology by using remote meeting solutions, such as telepresence and video conferencing; modernizing the production and distribution of government publications by shifting to electronic publishing and making print publications the exception; standardizing government information technology to reduce costs; and by closing tax loopholes and keeping taxes low and competitive in order to give businesses the incentive to create jobs.

Lastly, as part of our commitment to return to balanced budgets by 2015, we must ensure that our economy continues to grow and create jobs. To this end, the Prime Minister announced at the G20 summit in St. Petersburg in September that the Government of Canada is committed to achieving a federal debt to GDP ratio of 25% by 2021. The government will consider advancing the planned targets if economic growth is significantly stronger than anticipated.

Canada currently has the lowest total government debt of any nation in the G7, a number that includes the entire provincial, territorial and local governments, as well the Canada pension plan and Quebec pension plan. In fact, Canada's net debt was less than half the G7 average in 2012, coming in at 34.6% of GDP.

Low debt levels will result in lower taxes for Canadians as less money is required to service the debt. Low debt levels also mean a strong investment climate that supports job creation and economic growth. Job creation and economic growth have been our government's focus since we began to tackle the recession, and that will not change.

That is also why budget 2013 introduced the Canada job grant to provide for retraining of individuals who are looking to retrain and fill some of the numerous vacancies in our economy. The government remains singularly focused on creating an economic climate where businesses of all sizes are able to create jobs and invest in their operations and where we address the issue of people without jobs and jobs without people. Everyone wins.

Budget 2013 also aims to balance the budget by penalizing those who seek to avoid paying taxes. Through budget 2013, we are introducing new administrative monetary penalties and criminal offences to deter the use, possession, sale and development of electronic suppression of sales software designed to falsify records for the purpose of tax evasion.

We are also closing tax loopholes relating to character conversion transactions, synthetic dispositions, leveraged life insurance arrangements and other schemes, to ensure that everyone pays their fair share. If people want the benefit of being a Canadian, that involves paying their share.

To better promote economic growth, we have also extended the hiring credit for small business. It gives small business relief from the employer's share of employment insurance premiums paid in a year. It does this by crediting up to $1,000 on the payroll account based on the increase in an employer's EI premiums paid in one year over those paid in the year before. The simple aim of this measure is to encourage job creation in small businesses, which form the backbone of our economy.

Finally, once the budget is balanced, we will begin paying down debt again. As promised in the Speech from the Throne, we will bring the federal debt to GDP ratio back down to pre-recession levels by 2017. Deficit elimination, balanced budget legislation and paying down the debt are essential cornerstones of a strong and healthy economy.

In closing, please allow me to quote the C.D. Howe Institute and its reaction to budget 2013:

...the 2013 budget should be well received by markets. Budgetary balance is projected based on reasonable assumptions and within the previously announced time frame.

That quote speaks for itself. Budget 2013 has been well received by the markets, and Canada is one of the few nations retaining their AAA credit rating. It was one of the last nations into the recession, it came out of the recession quickly and in the past four years the economy has created over one million net new jobs.

This is great progress, but on this side of the House we are not content with that. We are eager for more. It is clear that the Canadian way of prudent fiscal management comprised of debt repayment, responsible stimulus, timely deficit elimination, balanced budgets in the medium term and returning debt to pre-recession levels is the way to address extraordinary economic times.

It lays the foundation for security and prosperity for years to come, in fact generations to come. I am encouraged to know that the nation my grandson, Tyler, is growing up in is safer, stronger, more prosperous and filled with opportunity.

[American Veterans of Royal Canadian Air Force, October 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, for going on two centuries, Canadians and Americans have crossed the 49th parallel to take up the fight of their neighbour. Nine thousand Americans served in the Royal Canadian Air Force in World War II, and 764 made the ultimate sacrifice in the cause of freedom.

Yesterday I had the great honour of representing Canada at the Virginia War Memorial for the unveiling of a plaque to honour the memories of 16 sons of Virginia who died in the service of RCAF Bomber Command. I joined Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell, military and civilian leadership, veterans, and families of the fallen 16 to unveil a stone tablet with aluminum crests of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the RCAF. What made it more special was that the aluminum came from Halifax LW682, shot down over Belgium in 1944 and only recovered in 1997.

Courage and sacrifice know no boundaries. The world is a better place because Canadians and Americans have stood together in troubled times. The ties that bind Canada and the United States have been forged in common cause and the blood of our sons and daughters.

Lest we forget.

[BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE AND ITS COMMITTEES, October 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy and am somewhat entertained by my hon. colleague across the way, but I think he was being a little disingenuous in his response to that last question in suggesting that there was somehow some doubt as to the results of the last election.

The conclusion by everyone who investigated that, officially and unofficially, was that there was no impact, zero impact, on any election results. To suggest that it might have changed somewhat is certainly disingenuous.

Let me give the member some facts. It is true that in the last election 62% of Canadians did not vote Conservative, 72% did not vote NDP, 82% did not vote Liberal, 94% did not vote Green, and 98% did not vote Bloc. Since we have had more than two parties, there have been 29 governments, 29 elections. There have been 16 majority governments and only 5 have reached more than 50% of the popular vote. Pierre Trudeau did not have one. Jean Chrétien did not have one.

I would like to point out that suggestions that somehow our government is illegitimate because we got less than 50% of the vote would suggest that there have been many illegitimate majority governments in Canada's history. The hon. colleague should maybe acknowledge that.

[Petitions, October 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by 26 members of my riding.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to: (a) amend Bill S-10 to close the loopholes and make it clear that no Canadian should ever be involved in the use of cluster munitions for any reason, anywhere, at any time, for anyone; (b) include an explicit prohibition on investment in cluster munitions production in Bill S-10; and (c) add mention of the positive obligations Canada has assumed by signing the convention on cluster munitions to Bill S-10.

[Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, October 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations to the minister on assuming her new post.

We focus in this House and in Canada on issues of marine, aviation, and rail safety and so on as it applies to Canada. That is clearly what we should be doing.

Can the minister give us some comparison of how we compare in our day-to-day record with respect to other international regimes that are facing the same kinds of challenges we are?

[Election of Committee Chairs, October 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in today's discussion of Motion No. 431 on the process for selecting chairs of committees in the House. I know my colleague, the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt, has brought forward this motion with the objective of strengthening the role of Parliament and its members.

A strong role for Parliament is an objective that is central to the government's policy agenda. Just as our government's commitment to jobs and economic prosperity has led to positive results for Canadians, such as through the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, our commitment to accountability, transparency and democratic reform has achieved results.

The government's first act on forming government in 2006 was to pass the Federal Accountability Act, a comprehensive set of reforms that changed the way Ottawa did business. It did so by strengthening government accountability, including accountability to Parliament. Since then, the government has continued to improve integrity and accountability in government through measures to promote democratic reform and open and transparent government.

Let me return to Motion No. 431.

The motion first sets out a requirement for the procedure and House affairs committee to consider the election of chairs by a means of a preferential ballot system by all members of the House. The motion then states that the committee would be required to study the practices of committee chair selections in other Westminster style parliaments. It concludes with the committee having to table its findings within six months of the motion being adopted, including any necessary modifications to the Standing Orders.

Let us discuss the context for the current chair selection system.

As members of the House know, our rules and, in particular, Standing Order 106, provide that at the start of every session and, when necessary, during a session, each standing or special committee shall elect a chair and two vice-chairs. If more than one candidate is nominated, an election is conducted by secret ballot. This approach is consistent with the long held view that committees are masters of their own affairs.

Before this motion came forward in the previous session, I was not aware that there were any major concerns with our current system. The existing rules for committee chairs have now been in place for over 10 years. I believe it is fair to say that the current system functions efficiently.

It may be helpful in considering this motion to remind members of the circumstances under which the current rules were adopted by the House. It was the Canadian Alliance Party that brought forward a change of the rules through an opposition day motion in October, 2002. The motion proposed to change the Standing Orders to require a secret ballot when selecting committee chairs. The premise for the motion was the belief that committee members should have the freedom to vote by secret ballot for the member of their choice to be chair. The House agreed with that rationale and adopted the motion by a vote of 174 to 87. That was 11 years ago. Members of all recognized parties at the time supported the motion. Over 30 of those members are still members of the House today.

I should note that although the previous government did not support the motion, many of its members did. After it passed, there was no subsequent attempt to undo the changes to the rules that it brought into effect. The result we see today is that committee chairs are elected by the members of the committees they serve.

With respect to electing committee chairs in other jurisdictions, many of the other Westminster style legislatures have the same system in place that we have. Most provincial legislatures, as well as the parliaments of Australia and New Zealand, have systems of electing committee chairs that are essentially the same as the one we use here.

An exception to this general approach is the United Kingdom, which only recently changed its system and rules in 2010. Under the new rules, at the start of a new parliament, the allocation of chairs of each party is set, based on the results of the previous election. Members are then able to submit nominations for committee chair positions, as long as the member they nominate is from the party which has been allocated the chair for that committee. To be nominated, a member must obtain signatures from either 15 members of his or her party or 10% of the party's members, whichever is lower. All members of that House vote to elect committee chairs based on a system of preferential ballots, ranking as many candidates as they wish. A candidate is elected once he or she has received more than half of the votes, with the lowest candidate dropped from the ballot and those votes distributed according to the rankings after any round that does not generate a majority outcome.

This new system was implemented in 2010, so it has only been used once. In that case, 16 of 24 committee chair positions were contested and decided by preferential ballot, and 8 were elected unopposed. At this time, it is too soon to determine what the long-term impact of those changes will be or whether there are any unintended consequences of the changes. There are several factors in the consideration of changes to House rules.

Let us return now to Motion No. 431 and the rules that govern the House of Commons in Canada.

Members will know that the rules of the House are carefully balanced, based on parliamentary principles and traditions and reflect the interests of all members. We should keep an open mind about changing these rules, but such change should never be a trivial matter. Rather, prudence, due diligence and a wide support among members are needed before considering any significant changes to the Standing Orders.

To avoid an arbitrary or trivial approach to changing the rules of the House, Standing Order 108(3)(a) provides for a review of the operation of our rules by the procedure and House affairs committee in each Parliament. This is a study which the committee will resume this fall.

Today's discussion is an important part of the consideration of this motion. Some of the questions and concerns members will be no doubt commenting on include these. Is there a need for changing the current system? Is there something about the system that is not working? Do members want a system where opposition members could influence the selection of government chairs and government members could influence the selection of opposition chairs? What are the mechanisms for removing chairs from their positions once elected? Would just committee members vote on this or all members of the House? How might this proposal affect considerations such as adequate gender or regional representation of committee chairs? Are these important issues for members? Are we willing to considering moving to a system based on one established very recently in 2010, for which there is little understanding of its long-term impacts and possible unintended consequences?

A study by the procedure and House affairs committee could review these and many other considerations. The committee is already undertaking a review of House rules and could review the process for electing committee chairs in the context of its broader review of the rules.

The government will support this motion. That said, it is important all members consider what is at stake when we implement any changes to the Standing Orders. Any such decision should be made with a clear understanding of potential impacts down the road.

We need to fully examine all options and potential consequences before considering whether there is a need to implement a new and permanent way of electing committee chairs.

There are often unanticipated consequences in making significant changes to the Standing Orders and, should the motion be adopted, these things should be carefully considered by the procedure and House affairs committee. We need to take careful consideration of any such changes. When we go down any road, we want to ensure that when we get to the destination we intended to get to, we do not leave a string of potholes behind us.