Mike Wallace

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 12th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, what happens, so the member knows, is that all members of the finance committee get together and make a decision about which province, which city, to which area they will go. They try to change it every year.

When I was on finance, we were in northern Canada one fall for a number of times. We have been to other provinces. In fact, as a member of Parliament, I have been on finance for five years and I have been in every province and territory in the country. The committee does a thorough job of consulting all Canadians regardless of their age or their—

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 12th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the chair of the finance committee who has done an excellent job as the chair in making sure that exactly what Canadians are telling the finance committee in its pre-budget consultations is understood and the issues are researched and brought forward in a report that goes to the Minister of Finance about what could be implemented through the policy document of the budget, and in this case was implemented based on the solid advice of the finance committee, and then turns into an implementation bill.

I want to thank the member for having his committee sit for 50 hours to discuss this particular bill. I thank the—

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 12th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, it is an excellent question because I have an excellent answer.

I was at committee just last week when not the chief archivist but a member from the financial area came in and said they were cutting a certain number of jobs and activities. Absolutely. It was because it was part of the archives' leadership management plan long before DRAP, long before we cut.

The NDP asked for the number or percentage of that change, in terms of how they operate, that is due to DRAP or the economic action plan changes that we are implementing. It was 3% or 4%, exactly what other departments are doing.

That person is making a managerial change because technology has changed and they can operate differently from the way they have in the past. Those changes would have happened regardless—

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 12th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak tonight to our budget implementation bill, Bill C-38. I have been listening to most of the speakers today, as I have been here on duty. Speakers on our side have been talking about the substance of the bill and different aspects of the bill that are of interest to those individual speakers. On the opposite side, we have heard a lot about process and why members opposite are upset about it, so I am happy to speak about process this evening.

I want to make sure those tuning in at home and those in the House who have not been here for many years understand the actual process of how we get here.

Every year, the finance committee meets and starts a pre-budget consultation. In the fall of the year it goes across the country, meeting with different individuals and groups to get input on what should be in the budget. The Minister of Finance does the same. Our ministers do the same, and I am assuming some opposition members also do some consultation.

Our Minister of Finance has been very gracious in asking for input from all sides of the House on the development of the budget, and this year it was developed and presented in late March. It was a very large budget. It had lots in it. There are lots of changes in the budget, and that is a policy document. The budget is really the policy aspect of where we would like to see the country go, based on the financial aspects put out in the budget--not specifics, but policy direction.

Members should know that, under the current law, there is actually no law requiring the government to present a budget at any particular time during the year. Finance ministers in Canadian history have presented a budget in the spring, and we continue that process, but that is not a legal requirement.

If we look at what has happened south of the border in the United States, it has been two or three years since a budget has been presented. They are having a tremendous amount of financial difficulties, as we all know, and part of their problem is that they cannot get their act together in terms of putting their country on the right financial footing from the government's perspective. Having a budget that could pass both Houses is part of the issue.

Here we have a budget that has come forward. It has been passed by this House and by the Senate. The budget we pass, we pass it in principle. From the budget, there are implementation bills. There are actually two, one in the spring, which we are debating tonight, and one in the fall, because it is difficult or almost impossible for the bureaucratic staff to go through every change and policy direction that is in the budget and turn it into actions. That is what an implementation budget is. It is turning what was said in the budget into actual actions, and of course it will require changes to different laws and to different aspects. This budget does exactly the same.

There has been some indication that what happened in the budget, which was passed, all of a sudden is showing up in this implementation bill, coming from nowhere. I want to point out some of the items, and I only have time to do four or five, that were actually in the budget, which this House passed and which are in the implementation bill. Some of it the opposition considers controversial. I do not know how controversial it is when it has been there.

Let us start with a simple one. In Part 2, on the sales and excise tax measures, which changes the GST and HST treatment of some medical devices, assistive devices and medical treatments, we have zeroed them out. Basically we had to pay GST on them before. In the implementation bill, we do not.

If we look at the jobs, growth and prosperity budget, which was passed by the House, and we turn to page 167, it talks about health related tax measures. It talks about the economic action plan 2012, which proposes expanded health-related tax relief under the GST and HST. It is right there in black and white. It is in the budget book. It was passed by this House.

The bureaucrats take what was in the budget and turn it into action, from policy to action in the implementation bill. It is there. We cannot argue that there is something new that we have not seen before that has not been discussed. It is right there.

Let us move on. One area that has been very controversial is what is happening with the natural resources area. In chapter 3 we have responsible resource development from pages 88 to 100 of the budget bill, “Modernizing the Regulatory System for Project Reviews”. That is almost 20 pages on what the policy changes should be to make our system more efficient and effective with respect to regulatory reviews, environmental assessments and improving projects. The issue is not, as we are hearing about, that we are making changes. Those changes are clear, if members read the budget bill, which they got on March 29, which is the day it was presented. We have had it for a couple of months. We know what changes there will be. All this budget implementation bill does is take what was said in the budget, what was passed by the House, and implement it. Of course it requires some changes to legislation. The policy is there and we are implementing that policy.

Here is another small one that I think is important. If we look at Part 4, Division 3, there is a section in the implementation bill about PPP Canada, the public-private partnership program we have. If members look at page 156 of the budget, imagine that, it talks about infrastructure money and that we will work with the municipalities to provide support for infrastructure development in this country. Part of that policy discussion was to enhance the role of the PPP to make that happen, to get the private sector involved with the public sector to make a difference in the infrastructure in this country. It is in the budget.

There are no surprises. The implementation bill did not come out of the blue with something that was not there before. It is on page 156. It is not exactly that, because it is policy. The budget document is policy, which we have to implement. That is what this act does.

We have a really simple one. Part 4, Division 16, talks about the Currency Act, and in the budget, on page 217, it talks about the elimination of the penny and why we are doing it. It is a policy decision. It is in the budget passed by this House and the Senate. In principle, we agreed to it. What do we have to do? We have to implement the change. It is in the implementation bill that is before us on page 217. It comes as no surprise to anyone that we are getting rid of the penny. It is in this bill. There are no changes and no issue with process.

Another piece, which I have heard today, which really surprises me, is about Part 4, Division 17, amending the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Canada Health Act. It is at page 190, and it goes on for a number of pages. There was one speaker on the opposite side who said we were cutting back money to the provinces in terms of the federal transfer for health, which is absolutely inaccurate. If we look in the budget book, we see it talks about what we are doing in terms of the plan we have to extend the 6% all the way to 2016-2017, which inaccurately was portrayed that we were cutting back. In fact, during the election we promised one year less, I believe, maybe even two years less that we would extend that 6% and then we would review it. The Minister of Finance stated in his budget book, in his policies, that we were extending that for an additional two years on top of what we had already committed to and that we would have a 3% accelerator after that. Therefore, it was clear that was what we were doing.

Guess what? What is in the implementation portion of this bill is implementing what was in that policy document. There are no surprises. It was there in black and white, supported by the House. It was not supported by every party, do not get me wrong, but it was passed, so if it is passed by the House I think we should implement it. Instead of just passing something and not doing anything about it, we are actually doing something about it.

This implementation bill is big, but so was the budget. The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister had the leadership foresight to say we need to continue to do things to make it so we do not fall behind, like other countries around the world—

[Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, June 12th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's presentation, although I do not agree with the premise of her speech.

We were elected to the House, as the member indicated, to get things done. This budget implementation bill is a function of what was in the budget. The budget is the policy document. The implementation bill puts things into action to make required changes.

Which clauses in this bill would the member support if they were moved out of the bill and voted on separately? I want to know which parts of the budget implementation bill the Liberals actually support.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member, my seatmate, for his fine speech. I want to thank him for pointing out the changes that we are making to the registered disability savings plan, a plan that came as a result of this government. When I was on the finance committee and we were doing a tour across the country at pre-budget time, this idea was brought forward. It was fleshed out by our finance minister and brought forward in a budget. I appreciate that clarity.

My colleague is a member of the finance committee. I think it is important for the House and those listening in to understand how much time the committee has spent in listening to testimony on this measure. If he could give us an overview of the committee's schedule in hearing from Canadians on the bill over the last couple of weeks, it would be appreciated.

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans, June 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise as the last speaker on third reading of this bill. I know you will regret interrupting me because my speech will be so good.

I have spoken to Bill C-38, the pooled registered pension plans act, before. Therefore, I will try to summarize what I think are the four important points and then I will to respond to some of the things I have heard over the last number of readings. I spoke to the bill at second reading and report stage. It is a very important bill and it is the right opportunity available to the government at present.

Previous speakers have said over and over again that there are other options, which other parties have been promoting, including changes to the CPP. However, that requires two-thirds of the provinces with two-thirds of the population to make the changes, and that is not available to us at this moment. The provinces are onside with an opportunity to bring forward legislation of their own to match the pooled registered pension plans act. We can pass something in the House that will affect federally-regulated industries. What is important for me and the residents of my riding is that it is available to all industries.

I believe the Liberal Party is in support of the bill, which we will see when we vote shortly, and we appreciate its support. It has, throughout the discussion, pointed out some areas where it feels there are other opportunities. We do not disagree with that. There are other opportunities.

What I do not understand is the position of the NDP members on the bill. They have an option that they would like to see happen. We have been very clear that the option is not available to the government at this time, but that should not stop members of the official opposition from supporting this tool. It makes no sense to me that they made the claim during an election time that they would come to Ottawa to make things work, to work with other groups that hoped to form government, I guess. Going from third place to becoming government would have been very difficult, but they did very well and they need to be congratulated for that.

The idea those members were selling at election time was they were coming here to work for average Canadians, who they met at the kitchen tables, and they were going to make Parliament work. Here is a perfect opportunity. The bill does not solve all the problems with regard to retirement income that Canadians face now and in the future, but it is a tool, an option and an opportunity that is available and can be supported by all parties. That is making things work for Canadians and that is why they should be supporting it.

The member for Welland said that this was the same as an RRSP. It is not the same as an RRSP. Two things are different. First, employees have six months to opt out. It involves people in the program. It is portable and people can take it with them if they change jobs. That is an important difference from an RRSP, where people have to opt in.

The other comment was that the owners of businesses were saying they could not afford to do it. They cannot afford the RRSP program because they have to manage the process on their own and that is tough for small businesses that only have a few employees. Even for medium-sized businesses, it is a very costly endeavour. The pooled registered pension plan would average out the costs, spread the costs out and would offer ease of entry into the program for employers. It is a perfect tool for employers to keep and attract employees.

One of the issues, maybe not from my generation but from my daughter's generation, is that workers move from employer to employer every three, four or five years. This is an opportunity for employers to use the pension plan to attract and retain employees. It is an excellent program.

We have not voted on third reading stage yet, but I would encourage the NDP to do the right thing and support the bill.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, June 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian joint delegation of the Canada-China Legislative Association and the Canada-Japan Inter-Parliamentary Group respecting its participation at the 19th annual meeting of the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum, APPF, which was held in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, from January 23 to 27, 2011.

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, June 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the response from the member. I want it to be clear and on the record that it was the current government that brought in the process that contributions to CPP cannot be raided of any surpluses by any government in the future. That was our doing, our policy.

Based on the member's comments, I assume the member is in support of and congratulates the government in making sure that future governments cannot raid surpluses, as previous governments have done in the past.

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, June 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, with whom I sat on the finance committee, for his speech. I disagreed with most of it, but I do appreciate his time.

Part of the member's argument is that there should be a voluntary opportunity to contribute to CPP. However, in the same speech the member argued that taxpayers do not have the money to contribute to a pooled registered plan. If they do not have the money for a pooled registered plan, how would they have money for the voluntary aspect of the CPP?

It is a defeatist argument, and it does not make any sense. The member cannot argue in one sense in one area and then argue the opposite in the same speech.

The member talked about how the Liberal Party put the CPP back on its financial feet. However, it was forced to do that after it took all the money out of the plan. They had to get it back on its feet, so they did something in the 1990s.

If this voluntary CPP contribution plan would be effective and the right thing to do, why did they not consider it when they were doing those changes in the 1990s?