Tony Clement

[Consumer Protection, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the hon. member for the question because it shows how connected he is to his local community and is representing its views.

We on the government side are happy to see this new wireless code. It puts consumers first. It addresses the key issues such as contract length and the exploding roaming charges, and some of us are aware of those, and other data charges as well. These are steps in the right direction.

I can assure the chamber that this government will continue to foster greater competition to provide Canadians with more choices at better prices in every region of this country.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am not here to tell the opposition how to conduct its affairs. I would just say that in my experience as a parliamentarian, which goes back to 1995, quality matters as much as quantity, in a lot of cases. The hon. member might want to talk to his research department or the various staffers who work for the NDP and work on that as we move forward in this parliamentary session.

The case was made. Various organizations from western Canada, central Canada and eastern Canada came forward saying that this bill is necessary. Probably municipalities in the hon. member's own constituency came before us and said that they need this bill to be passed and that it is important for their municipalities to attract new growth, jobs and opportunities by having the infrastructure in place. Business organizations, mostly small and medium enterprises, probably in the honourable member's own constituency, came before us and said that they need this bill passed.

The hon. member is incorrect when he says that we did not have that kind of say, that kind of debate and that kind of discussion. The jury is back in, and it is saying that this bill is necessary. That is what these groups and organizations representing millions of Canadians are saying.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to get into the details, as the hon. member has, of Manitoba politics. I think she is the resident expert, and I will let her comments stand. However, I think the point she was making is valid.

We are talking about a budget bill here. Budget bills, by their very nature, indeed by their very definition, are going to change various aspects of various bills down the line. They are going to change the Income Tax Act. They are going to change, in this case, acts respecting crown corporations. They are going to change things that have to do with citizenship and immigration. In this case, we are giving more funds to veterans, so there are changes that have to do with Veterans Affairs.

It is perfectly natural and normal that a bill that pertains to the economy and the budgeting of the government will affect various other pieces of legislation down the line. That is typical. This is not atypical in any manner of speaking in that regard. This bill is important to the future of our economy to make sure we continue to find ways to produce more jobs, more opportunity, more economic growth and more economic certainty.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, there was a process to consider the amendments and the views of organizations such as trade unions and small businesses, for example. This process took place in committee, of course. That is precisely the place where these issues should be discussed. However, as I have previously said about crown corporations, the changes are intended to protect taxpayers, the public. We want a system that will enable crown corporations and unions to hold discussions. This is necessary to protect taxpayers' interests.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I think I have outlined already this afternoon that our government approached this bill in a way that gave it further consideration by six separate committees of the House of Commons on various aspects of this bill. That shows that we are interested in getting feedback and in making sure that parliamentarians have an opportunity to have their say and input. That should be applauded, not held in derision, as the hon. member has done.

I find it passing strange that the hon. member, representing the party he does, says that. As I mentioned, in 2001, just to pick one example, the budget the previous Liberal government produced was longer than this budget and had 40% less debate in the House of Commons. It had bigger budgets than this one, with less debate. That was its record. For the hon. member to stand in this place and criticize us when we have gone out of our way to make sure that we have plowed new ground when it comes to discussion and debate on this particular budget does not have very much credibility.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about the process. As I have already said, content is also important.

More than six House committees had the opportunity to consider the different aspects of the bill. For example, the Standing Committee on Finance met more than five times to study this bill. The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development and other committees of the House also met to study this bill. Therefore, there has been a great deal of discussion and debate.

Naturally, when it comes to the process, discussions and debate are necessary and important. However, at the end of the day, it is important to have discussion here, in the House, in order to arrive at a conclusion.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this gets to the gist of what this is about. Procedure is important, certainly procedural fairness is important, but it is also about content. It is also about ensuring that we can move forward as a country and as a society for more jobs, more opportunity to ensure that security. When it comes to economic security, security of the taxpayer and security of our communities, it continues to be the raison d'être in this place for government activity, particularly surrounding the economic action plan 2013 and budgetary measures. The bill would do that

I will give a few examples. It would extend tax relief for new investments in machinery and equipment. I certainly heard in my round tables that this was important for Canadian manufacturing in particular, Canadian production more generally.

It would index gas tax fund payments to better support job creating infrastructure in municipalities. This is something municipalities had called upon governments to do for years. We are doing it in the bill.

Extending the mineral exploration tax credit is another example. I come from northern Ontario. This is critically important to the continued success of the economy in northern Ontario and other parts of our country.

Those are but a few examples of why the bill is important.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will take that under advisement, but some things occurred at committee that were without precedent. It was a positive development that the hon. member was invited to the various committees. She was also invited to table amendments at finance committee and was able to speak at another committee.

As the hon. member knows, her numbers in the House do not technically warrant this. The rules are perhaps archaic, but they are the rules of this place. However, we were able, as a chamber, to come together to give her a greater opportunity.

Sometimes the opposition parties resisted this, I am told. I hope that is not over-reading the case, but it was very positive that the hon. member was given those opportunities. This is a greater opportunity than had been the case in the past.

I think that answers her question from the government side in terms of being fair and reasonable with respect to hearing representation on the bill.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's commentary and question gives me the opportunity in my reply to remind her and the House that there were six parliamentary committees, including finance, that took portions of the bill, had hearings, heard from not only government officials but from business leaders as well. They heard from academics, industry groups, labour groups and many more. Those voices were heard. They were part of the deliberations of the committees, as it should be. Parliamentarians on those committees had an opportunity to familiarize themselves, in detail, with particular portions of the bill to ensure it did get the scrutiny it deserved. Then the bill came back for report stage to this chamber.

At this point, we are simply ensuring there is a framework for further debate on the bill. It is debate that is longer, quite frankly, than on previous budgets in the previous Liberal government. I note the 2001 Liberal budget, which was larger than today's bill, only had three days of debate. We propose to have more than that. Therefore, we are doing our due diligence as parliamentarians.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for further debate that had already occurred in the House of Commons committee on this item. There is no reason why there should not be further debate on it in this chamber as well.

However, the position of the government is that our bill does nothing of the sort in terms of journalistic integrity or independence when it comes to the journalism that is a portion of what the CBC does. Our concern, on behalf of the taxpayer, is that we have these crown corporations, not only the one the hon. member referenced, but dozens of others that go about their business in collective bargaining. At the end of the day, if their collective bargaining means massive changes in liability and in costs to that crown corporation, they turn to the bank of last resort, which is the Government of Canada.

Surely to goodness we should have some say in those collective bargaining arrangements, not in terms of journalistic integrity but in terms of the business affairs of these crown corporations, including, but not limited to the CBC, to ensure taxpayers are protected.