Debates of Oct. 29th, 2012

Jobs and Growth Act, 2012

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what is proposed in Bill C-45 will create a two-tier system for pension plans, which is obviously going to affect young people significantly. There are also all sorts of measures that will undermine the protection of the environment.

The hon. member has already mentioned that this will greatly affect her generation. As our leader often says, we are passing on a debt burden to future generations, whether in the form of environmental debt, economic debt, and so on.

Could the hon. member tell us about the problems that this could create for young people, who already do not trust politicians? How will they be affected overall?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her very relevant question.

It is incredible to see that the government is so irresponsible that it ignores the devastating impact of this bill and of Bill C-38 on my generation.

The hon. member made a connection with young people's lack of confidence in politicians. It is true that they already do not have much trust. Fortunately, our caucus represents the youth of Canada, given its many young members of Parliament and the issues that they bring forward.

However, the fact remains that this government is shirking its major responsibility for our country's future.

We see that an entire generation will not have good pension plans, will not be able to afford the soaring costs of housing, for example, will not be able to pay off student debts and will not have access to good jobs in the public service or in general. This reality is scary, showing us an absolutely incredible side of the Government of Canada. Yet this government is supporting this reality instead of demonstrating a leadership role in building a better future for Canadians.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege and a delight to speak to Bill C-45, the final implementation of the budget act, the jobs and growth act. It is titled, “jobs, growth and long-term prosperity”. The reason we chose that title is that the focus of this bill is for just that: for long-term prosperity, for jobs and for growth.

We have heard the numbers countless times. On our side of the House, we are reminded that since this government has been in office and since that horrendous crash in 2008-09 when so many jobs were wiped out, not only here in Canada but across the world, there has been an increase of 820,000 net new jobs. That is an outstanding number.

We also hear the statistics that we rank among the highest in the G8 nations, that we are in the best fiscal position and that we are among the highest in growth in G8 nations.

That does not say there is tremendous growth. We know that in the world today there has been an enormous slowdown. Yet repeatedly, for the last number of years, Canada has managed to hold a position and to build some strength in that position, as well.

We also know that when governments get it right, when governments help create healthy climates, jobs are created. That is the main focus of this government and the reason we have focused so much on those areas. We do that by, first, listening.

I have the privilege to serve on the finance committee. We are involved in budget consultations at this point. We meet every night, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. We meet from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. We ask people and groups from right across this country to come in to speak to us and to tell us what they feel this government has to do to be successful, to grow those jobs, to get those people back to work, to help young Canadians who are coming out schools, be they high schools, colleges or universities, to get jobs. We listen to these groups and these people.

We listen to industry. Again, I was fortunate, in the first four years I served in this House, to serve on the industry committee. In the industry committee, again, we invite industry; we invite labour; we invite all these groups to tell us just what we can do as a government to make things work.

It is people who create jobs. It is businesses that create jobs. Governments create healthy atmospheres.

We listen to business groups, we listen to labour and we listen to the experts. We learned great lessons from the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington last Friday. He gave us a little essay in the house on Keynesian policies and how many governments today—most governments in the western world since before World War II—embarked upon that kind of plane where governments were told they need to spend to stimulate the economy. I think most of us would probably agree with that, but we have had a bit of runaway Keynesianism.

There was another school of thought at that time, the Austrian school, the Mises, that taught it is the responsibility of governments to maintain and make sure their books are in order. We did, and we do what the experts suggest we do. The first thing they tell us, repeatedly, is to get government spending under control, eliminate the deficit.

It is a fact that this government is concentrating on lowering government spending. We do not agree on both sides of the House. Often times, we hear it is the role of government to spend more, to spend our way out of a recession or that, rather than cut spending, maybe we ought to raise taxes.

We hear repeatedly, not just from businesses—obviously businesses do not want to be taxed and corporations do not want to be taxed—but we hear from the experts, the economists, that it works in reverse and ultimately when businesses and corporations are taxed, they take that cost and add it to the cost of products. Then we become uncompetitive in the world. Therefore, our goal on this side of the House is to make sure tax level does not become a burden and to make sure we do not impede growth.

One of the other things we heard repeatedly was to reduce red tape. Red tape is something that stagnates growth. It causes frustration in the marketplace. We have to eliminate those things that impede growth. I have spoken about a number of those areas, one of them being red tape. However, there are other things that governments do, oftentimes with the right intention, but we find out down the road that they cause more problems than they solve. Businesses asked that we not overburden them with taxes and regulations and that we open up the marketplace.

Canada is a trading nation. We are a nation that does a pretty good job at producing certain things. We are strong in extraction. We have a very rich resource sector. We are strong in service sectors, telecommunications and banking, and we do a good job in financing. We are able to export those to other countries. However, oftentimes there are trade barriers that pop up and make those things difficult for our companies. Therefore, our Minister of Trade has been extremely busy on a trade mission.

Let me read something he said:

In less than six years, [we have]...concluded trade agreements with nine countries: Colombia, Honduras, Jordan, Panama, Peru, and the European Free Trade Association member states of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. Canada has also begun deepening trade and investment ties with the largest markets in the world, including the European Union, India and Japan.

The European Union has 500 million people.

Most recently, we announced in October that Canada has formally joined the trans-Pacific partnership, the TPP trade negotiations. This is a trade agreement under negotiation by 11 countries, which now include Canada and Mexico. The other members include Australia, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam.

Canadians can see that we are opening up these opportunities. This gives our companies, our people, an opportunity.

The Speaker is telling me I am running out of time, so I am going to talk about what is really near and dear to me, and that is the bridge to strengthening trade act. We have inserted a provision in the omnibus bill that allows for a bridge across to the United States in my neck of the woods, Chatham-Kent—Essex. Why this is so important is that we are a trading nation. The town of Leamington, which is part of my riding, has an enormous greenhouse industry. Two hundred trucks leave Leamington greenhouses bound for the U.S. every day. More than 70% of the greenhouse industry goes to the United States. There are 223 greenhouse operations in Ontario, and Leamington is home to the largest concentration of greenhouses. There are over 1,500 acres under cover. They tell me that one acre is equal to ten times the production on normal land. It is imperative that those goods get across to the United States. We need that crossing. Therefore, we have put a provision in the budget that would allow for its speedy construction.

I was also very privileged to be able to announce the gateway, the section of HIghway 401 to the bridge. Last year in August the government announced we would spend $1 billion. A very important part of the budget is the trade issue. It is very important in my riding.

I encourage the opposition to look at those great benefits, not only for the country but for areas like Chatham-Kent—Essex, where it is so important that we continue this trade.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about job creation, which is at stake in Bill C-45. I would like to come back to that, because my colleague did not go into detail on the matter.

In the Auditor General's most recent report, we saw that the Minister of Finance's decisions were not backed by the figures in a report on long-term fiscal sustainability. In other words, the Minister of Finance is making decisions without truly knowing what impact these decisions will have on public finances over the long term, which is concerning.

I would like to know whether my colleague knows what long-term effects the elimination of tax credits for research and development will have, for example. In my riding, there is a company that just cut 300 jobs. This company was very active in research and development, which is why this question came to mind.

Does my colleague know the long-term effects of a decrease in tax credits for research and development? If so, what is he using to back his long-term predictions?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an area of real concern as well.

I have served on both the finance and the industry committee. One of the studies that was produced by the industry committee back in 2007 touched on those areas. The Liberals were in opposition at the time and the committee submitted an unanimous report to the House.

One of the areas of great concern is how we can best use research money and how to make that effective. This is a constant struggle. This is something that we as a government, and members on all sides of the House when we serve in committee, try to get right. The objective is to, first of all, have good research because we all benefit from good research. Second is to make sure that the research that is done will provide jobs. The result will be stronger economies. I think we are—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. I do not mean to cut the hon. member off but we have to leave enough time for other members to ask questions.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague from Chatham-Kent—Essex telling us how important it is for the economy to move that bridge forward in a timely way.

I would like to focus my question on the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which the opposition for some reason has tried to link to the environment. It is a 100-year-old piece of legislation that does not speak to the environment at all. It is really about navigation on our waterways.

Why is this another important feature of this budget implementation act and how will it help long-term growth and prosperity?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue serves on finance committee as well and she does an outstanding job.

Ten minutes goes by so quickly, but a point that I was trying to get to in my speech was that the navigable waters act is very important to my riding of Chatham-Kent—Essex, as it is I am sure in her riding as well. We have flat land in Chatham-Kent—Essex. It does not get any flatter and we have many drains and ditches. I am hearing from cities, townships and counties how the old law that the member referred to is making it difficult to put in things as simple as a culvert to cross a ditch.

We are doing things that need to be done. We are doing things that make sense. As a result, we should have a strong impact on our economy. That is precisely what we are trying to do with the legislation.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-45. I would like to open my remarks by joining those who spoke before me in saying that I do not agree with the way we are proceeding with Bill C-45, which is a mammoth omnibus bill. Call it what you will, but the fact remains that this bill is more than 400 pages long and has various parts dealing with different areas. Not only are we restricted to having only one debate, but we also have only one opportunity to vote on a massive bill containing a wide range of measures. For a party that boasted that it would be transparent and would stand up for democracy, this makes no sense. Frankly, we are wondering what has become of those lofty ideals today.

As a parliamentarian, I have to vote only once. This bill has some elements that I agree with and that I would be happy to vote in favour of. Unfortunately, it also has a number of incomplete and potentially harmful features that need major amendments or that should not be there in the first place. I am in a position where I have to vote for or against a wide range of measures and amendments. I think this way of doing things is neither transparent nor democratic.

A number of hon. members have asked us why we are complaining, because everything that is in Bill C-45 was already announced in the budget. I would like to set the record straight and say that that is not true. Not all the measures in Bill C-45 were in the budget. Let us stop lying to Canadians. That is shameful. For instance, one amendment in Bill C-45 has to do with the right of grain farmers to an appeal process. I did not find that in the main budget tabled last spring. The same goes for the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

There are things in Bill C-45 that were not clearly announced in the budget and that warrant careful consideration. Anytime we are faced with such an immense bill, there is always confusion and unexpected things.

The Liberals proposed removing the parts related to pensions from Bill C-45. If that proposal had been accepted, we would have voted in favour of the measure concerning members' pensions and the one concerning public service pensions and Canadian Forces members' pensions. With just one vote, and without any debate, we would have affected the pensions of over 450,000 Canadians.

Modifying people's pension plans without bothering to dedicate any time for consideration, debate or examination is such an insult. This shows a complete lack of respect and a negligent attitude toward democracy. The cavalier, disrespectful attitude this government is taking regarding such important issues for Canadians will undermine their confidence in our parliamentary system.

I would now like to take a closer look at one particular measure announced in Bill C-45: changing the eligibility age for public servants' retirement pensions. Anyone hired as of January 1, 2013, will receive his or her retirement pension at age 65 instead of 60. Five years is a long time; it is more than just a few weeks or a few months. This change is not really justified. The budget indicates that this measure is responsible and is important to ensuring the sustainability of the pension plan. However, those few words are by no means sufficient justification for making such a major change to the pension plan.

On what grounds is the viability of the program being determined? Perhaps there are reasonable grounds to believe the retirement age needs to be raised, but I doubt it. I will leave this open to discussion and debate. The government cannot simply declare that the viability is at risk and the age must therefore be raised; that is not enough. I want to see some figures and some studies proving that the viability is at risk at this time. I can easily draw a comparison with the changes announced to old age security.

All kinds of non-partisan expert studies show that old age security in its present form, with 65 as the age of eligibility, is sustainable in the long term. Of course we do not need complex calculations to know that costs will rise as the population ages. Old age security, a public pension program, will cost more because the proportion of seniors will be greater. Does this mean that the program is not sustainable in the long term? Not at all. Just because it will cost more does not mean that we will absolutely not be able to cover the costs. Experts' in-depth long-term analyses take into account a number of factors and unanimously confirm that old age security with 65 as the age of eligibility is a program that we can afford to keep.

On a number of occasions, the opposition has asked—as the critic for seniors, I have asked dozens of times—for the figures, studies and reports on which the government bases its claim that the viability of old age security is in jeopardy. To date, I have not seen any valid proof, or anything to justify these changes. The recent Auditor General's report clearly states that some figures and studies could have been made public to provide some indication of and information about the real reasons for changing the eligibility age for our old age security program. No figure has been published even though, in 2007, the government promised to do so and, in 2011, the Auditor General recommended that the government once again publish a report on long-term fiscal sustainability.

Furthermore, we also learned from the Auditor General's most recent report, which was released last week, that the Minister of Finance does not necessarily have all the information on the long-term impact of his decisions. He makes the decisions and then is subsequently informed by the department of the long-term impact of the decisions. Quite frankly, there is cause to be suspicious of the reasons for the changes proposed by Bill C-45 and by the Conservatives' most recent budget.

That concludes my remarks on pensions affected by Bill C-45 and the budget. I would also like to talk about another aspect related to Canadians' savings and their financial security: pooled registered pension plans.

Many experts agree that pooled registered pension plans will not enhance Canadians' financial security; rather, they will undermine it. Yes, we can do something to protect retirees' financial security. We can take meaningful steps and we can do it now if possible. The government should not introduce another savings vehicle similar to RRSPs and TFSAs. Not everyone contributes to RRSPs and TFSAs, which are savings vehicles. A whole lot of people cannot put money aside for retirement.

What are the unique advantages of a pooled registered pension plan? It will give employers the opportunity to provide a so-called pension plan—merely “so-called” because a PRPP is not a pension plan; it is a savings plan—without having to commit to anything. Employers can set up a plan that employees may contribute to if they want, which is fine, but employers do not actually have to do anything. If employers are not interested in participating, they simply do not have to. That is not a solution.

Many experts say that we have to rethink our defined benefit pension plan and that we have to protect it. That is the only thing that will put Canadians in a position to save for their retirement and allow them to count on a set amount of money when they retire. Changes are in order if we want to improve these pension plans and keep them viable. But we have to be serious about making those changes.

I could go on at length about this, but I see that my time is almost up. Nobody can cover everything in a 400-page bill in 10 minutes.

In closing, I want to say that, if the Minister of Finance thinks that austerity is prudent, he should be careful, because people must not be led to believe that the cuts he has proposed are in any way necessary. This is nothing but political rhetoric and lies, if I may say so.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.

She spoke about old age security, which is a very important topic. She also mentioned the Auditor General's report. If I am not mistaken, this report compares the costs of maintaining the current system of retirement at the age of 65 to the costs of a system of retirement at the age of 67, as proposed by the government, which does not believe that the current system is sustainable. But the difference between the two systems represented 0.3% of the GDP. This certainly does not indicate that the current system is not viable.

Why does my colleague think that the government is telling us that the current system is not viable, when we are talking about a difference of only 0.3% of the GDP?

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for picking up on what I spoke about earlier. I was saying that we can cope with Canada's aging population and maintain access to old age security at the age of 65.

Why do the Conservatives want to push that back to 67? That is an excellent question. If I knew what was going on in their heads, perhaps I would have the answer. If I had been given documents explaining why, perhaps I would have the answer.

No one can really understand why the government is pushing the age of eligibility for old age security back to 67. Why not 66 or 68? Why in 10 years? Why not in seven years? What effects will it have? And what costs will it transfer to the provinces?

Up until now, we do not have any of that information, which is completely unacceptable.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member comment on a couple of very important statistics?

The first is that Canada has the lowest debt to GDP ratio in G7 countries. It is predicted by the IMF to be a leader in the world economy over the next two years. Second, perhaps the hon. member could tell us the importance to her riding of the 820,000-some-odd jobs that have been created since Canada came out of the global economy recession in relatively good shape?

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member offered up some figures, but I must point out that figures taken out of context mean nothing, because you can spin them however you want.

I could also cite the figure provided by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who said that the loss of tens of thousands of jobs in Canada was the result of austerity measures in the Conservatives' budget.

We can keep throwing figures back and forth. I think it is false to say that the Conservatives' cuts are necessary. We are constantly being told that if we do not make these cuts, we will incur all kinds of debt and the economy will suffer. Careful. This is the same government that is depriving the federal treasury of tens of billions of dollars in useless tax credits.

Let us put things back into perspective: cuts and the budget are a matter of choice; not a matter of obligation.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her remarks.

She talked about respect, which is a fundamental theme. Parliament and Canadians need to be respected and they need to be informed about everything that is in Canada's budget.

In addition, as a result of this second omnibus bill, parliamentarians will surely not have enough time to talk about everything that is in the budget.

I want to ask about the impact that these changes to pensions in particular would have on young people. We have a change in pensions, going from 65 to 67, and in the public sector, from 60 to 65. It would mean for young people it would take longer to get into the market because they would have to work longer and work later in life as well.

Could my colleague give us her thoughts on the impact the budget would have on young people for decades to come?

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it will be difficult to give a short answer to such a question, but I will do my best.

Indeed, the current youth unemployment rate is alarming. And what does the budget propose to solve this problem? Nothing. Instead, the budget increases the retirement age of public sector workers from 60 to 65. This measure will clearly have an impact on young people and future generations. Decisions like that should not be made just to get re-elected, but rather based on the impact that they will have on future generations.

I have a word of advice for the government. Not only would publishing long-term fiscal sustainability reports help in making the right decisions, but it would also inform people of the impact of the decisions made.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to seek unanimous consent to move the following motion, and I know my colleagues will give that to me: That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, clauses 308 to 314 related to changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act be removed from Bill C-45, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures and do compose Bill C-47; that Bill C-47 be entitled “An act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act”; that Bill C-47 be deemed read a first time and be printed and that the order for the second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration; that Bill C-45 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order; that Bill C-45 be reprinted, as amended, and that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.

We propose the motion to give the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration an opportunity to ensure due diligence to examine and propose amendments.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. member for Newton—North Delta have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Lethbridge.

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on March 29, the Minister of Finance presented the 2012 budget, Canada's economic action plan for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. The budget was developed after extensive consultation with fellow MPs, department personnel, economists, business and community leaders and ordinary Canadians. It is not surprising that our Minister of Finance has been called the best finance minister in the world after the World Economic Forum rated Canada's performance as the best among G8 economies in the midst of a global crisis.

The overwhelming message I received from constituents throughout the year was, “Keep on keeping on. Your plan is working. Continue to keep taxes low, continue to reduce redundant red tape, continue to facilitate trade among the provinces and continue to open up new markets around the world”.

Albertans in particular support this disciplined and balanced approach to managing the country's economy. The vast majority of Canadians support our focus on substantial, responsible and necessary change, while taking advantage of global economic opportunities and ensuring sustainable social programs and sound public finances for future generations. However, the NDP does not support this.

As members may recall, shortly after the budget was announced, the NDP leader made headlines with his divisive comments of blaming Alberta's successful energy-based economy for the downsizing of the manufacturing-based economies in Quebec and Ontario. He also blamed the strong Canadian dollar, for which Alberta's booming economy is responsible, for the downturn in manufacturing. Prairie premiers and other western leaders were quick to reject his claims and he was even criticized by left-leaning eastern journalists who recognized his comments to be divisive and unsuitable for a national leader.

However, we have to hand it to the Leader of the Opposition, he does stick to his guns. Notwithstanding the public outcry, he has not backed down. In fact, he got bolder and even more bizarre. In a question period he went so far as to say:

—the Canadian dollar is being held artificially high, because they are failing to enforce environmental legislation....500,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs have been lost because we are not enforcing legislation. We are not enforcing the navigable waters act. We are not enforcing the migratory birds act. We are not enforcing the Fisheries Act.

Behold the NDP plan to revive the manufacturing sector: enforce the Migratory Birds Convention Act.

It is an unfortunate but acceptable consequence of environmental regulations that the economy should suffer. However, the NDP suggest that we impose environmental legislation, not to protect the environment, but to deliberately hurt the Alberta economy in particular and the Canadian economy in general.

Some people have said that it is disingenuous to suggest there are environmental restrictions which negatively impact the economy, while doing very little to actually protect the environment. This is not simply an accidental result of miscalculating the effects of well-intended policies. The Leader of the Opposition reveals that it is an intentional and integral part of the NDP environmental agenda.

The NDP wants to impose strict environmental restrictions upon the Alberta energy sector to significantly undermine its profitability and weaken the general economy. This would bring down the value of the Canadian dollar thereby making Canadian manufactured goods less expensive to foreign markets. Its bizarre economic philosophy suggests that we would all be better off if only the economy was not doing so well.

This line of thinking is not unique to its leader; it is typical NDP mentality. Nor is this philosophy and methodology new. When fighting against the implementation of the same socialist philosophy in the 1840s, Frédéric Bastiat pointed out that in order to gain power, “Ambitious hypocrites...planting the seeds of international discord in the mind of the public”. He stresses the importance of exposing the false assumptions upon which their economic theories are based. He says, “the public can be robbed only if it is first deceived...and we may be certain...every sophism is the precursor of an act of plunder”.

In other words, whenever we see a wonky argument for equalization that is superficially plausible but makes huge leaps and depends on false assumptions, hold on to our wallet.

Since our motive should be the welfare and prosperity of the country, no matter how politically incorrect they are, if the words of the NDP leader are right, we should swallow our pride and implement them. However, they are wrong and there are reasons much more important than scoring politically for pointing it out.

In politics, false assumptions are especially harmful because they mislead public opinion, and public opinion is the guiding force of public policy. If deception and false assumptions are the weapons of the plunderer, then the best shield for the public is correct understanding.

Pitting one region against another is not just politically incorrect, it also discourages inter-regional and inter-industry co-operation, harming national unity and stagnating economic growth for all regions in all industries.

The words of the leader of the official opposition are not just divisive. The belief that each region's gains depend on the losses of others not only destroys the economies of weaker regions but also eventually destroys the strong as well, just a parasite must perish after it has fully consumed its host.

The economy is not a zero sum game. If we are to prosper, it is important to understand that in a free market, it is the very nature of free economic exchanges that both parties gain and, in fact, that co-operation is more effective than competition. Supposing that a region cannot prosper in the absence of abundant natural resources without forced equalization weakens that region and stifles its creativity. The downturn in manufacturing was not caused by a strong dollar but was a natural correction in an artificially supported sector. The strong dollar is a reflection of a strong economy and a strong economy inspires confidence, encouraging outside investment and internal growth.

A lower loonie may increase demand for domestically manufactured goods, but increased demand would also increase their price for foreign markets and Canadians. Ironically, it would also lower the value of the dollar earned by people in the manufacturing sector. Also, the opposition's anti-oil, lower loonie plan would increase revenue for the oil companies too, since their prices are based on U.S. dollars. Therefore, we would end up shipping crude oil at a lower Canadian dollar price, only to have to import gasoline at high U.S. prices. Protectionists always seem to forget that the economy is not made up only of producers and sellers, but also includes consumers.

The economy of a country is not actually a race to the top where only one team can win. If we wanted to make sure that all of the runners crossed the finish line at the same time, it might make sense to place some artificial obstacles in the path of the fastest runners or to give slower runners a head start. A national economy is more like a team of mountain climbers working together to reach the summit. Would it make sense to put obstacles in the way of a climber with the best chance of getting to the top first if, from there, he could better assist those below? However, that is what the member for Outremont and his not-so-merry band of socialists want to do with respect to industry. They forget that the desired result is Canada's well-being, all of it.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's comments in which he also mentioned environmental legislation. I would like to ask him a question about that with regard to Bill C-45. This is a continued theme in the current bill, as it was in Bill C-38, where there were significant cuts to the Fisheries Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

In Bill C-45, there are changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. In fact, the term “water” is dropped from the title of the act. In my riding, for instance, waterways, rivers, creeks and lakes, are held in high regard and people expect them to be managed properly. This requires protective measures, like the Navigable Waters Protection Act. In fact, my riding is nestled between the world-famous Fraser River, known for its history and salmon, and Burrard Inlet in Port Moody. There are many other important waterways I could talk about, like the Coquitlam River, the Burnett River and Comeau Creek.

Does the member honestly think that the Navigable Waters Protection Act is not assisting in the protection of our great country and, in fact, is—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. I am sorry to cut the hon. member off, but there needs to be time for other members who may wish to pose questions.

The hon. member for Lethbridge.

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my riding is in southern Alberta and is often plagued by drought, so we too love our waterways. The Navigable Waters Protection Act was designed to regulate navigation on navigable waters. The change in this bill brings it back to its original intent so that it will focus on navigation. It does not eliminate environmental controls or protections. Under the old Navigable Waters Protection Act, the ditches in a farmer's field, or the stream that runs through my town for instance, were controlled by the Navigable Waters Protection Act. This bill simply recognizes that these waterways are not major commercial navigation routes and do not need to be regulated by such an archaic act.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as part of a debate, if a member can help explain a certain position, either one side or the other, it is of benefit.

The government has talked a great deal about the NDP proposal for a cap and trade system. We know that the Conservatives put forward a similar cap and trade proposal, placing a $65 per tonne fee on carbon.

Could the member take a couple of minutes to explain the difference between those two approaches? They seem very similar to me.

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the main difference is that the NDP wants a carbon tax, what it is calling a cap and trade system, and the Conservatives do not.