House of Commons Hansard #121 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was years.

Topics

Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, I know your ruling makes the member across the way uncomfortable. However, I want to talk about how Manitobans are feeling after the federal and provincial budgets came down and make a comparison so people understand, in Manitoba and right across Canada, the dangers of an NDP government.

As I said, in 2011, in the example, federal tax due is $6,000 at a 15% personal income tax rate. The Manitoba tax is just shy of $4,500. I am not talking about all the different tax credits introduced, such as tax reductions because of age, children, education or sports. I am talking about only the reduction in the bracket creep and in the personal income tax base. The taxpayers in Manitoba are enjoying a savings in federal income tax of $1,736, which is down 22.5%. However, they are paying $743 more in provincial income tax. That is up almost 20%. Instead of enjoying a tax savings of $2,578, thanks to the NDP in Manitoba, they are only enjoying a $993 reduction in personal income taxes. That is a personal tax grab of $1,585 by Stan Struthers and Premier Selinger.

We hear that Manitoba needs the money because it is not getting enough money from Ottawa. In this budget, we are maintaining our transfers to the provinces. Since we came to power, we have increased our overall contributions to the province of Manitoba by $648 million. That is a huge increase from the $2.7 billion from the federal Liberals to the $3.4 billion that the Conservatives are giving Manitoba. The problem is that Manitoba does not have a revenue problem. It has increased taxes and it gets more money from the federal government. It has a spending problem.

I wanted to talk about the dangers of what NDP policies present to us and what the NDP would do with a federal budget. What sums it up best is in a letter that Sean Hutton wrote to the Winnipeg Sun, “For anyone out there who’s crazy enough to envision a national NDP government take a look at the disaster they’ve created in Manitoba! Who’s crazy enough to want that?”

Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

NDP

Niki Ashton NDP Churchill, MB

Mr. Speaker, I admire the vigour of the member across the aisle when it comes to making his political points. I wish he would use a closer lens to look at exactly what his party is doing when it comes to gutting the rural Manitoban economy especially and the economy in his own part of the region that he represents.

I would like him to talk about what this budget and his government are doing with respect to the elimination of the community pastures program and what it means for ranchers in his riding. I would like him to talk about what it means for the federal government to withdraw, a few months ago, $10 million in the cattle enhancement program that it had committed to. I would like him to talk about what it means to lose the Canadian Wheat Board and to have so many prairie farmers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta who do not know what next year is going to look like.

Those seem to me like some pretty severe measures when it comes to not only gutting the economy but putting at risk the livelihoods of the people he is supposed to be representing.

Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, I know that the speech I just gave hits her pretty closely and personally since her dad sits in the cabinet of a provincial NDP government. I have a lot of respect for him because he is reaching out and trying to work with his federal counterparts, unlike some of the other cabinet ministers who have constantly attacked us rather than try to work with us.

Unfortunately, it was while he was sitting at the cabinet table that the decision was made to intentionally raise the levels of Lake Manitoba and flood hundreds of thousands of operations, properties and communities around Lake Manitoba. Over 100,000 cattle had to be removed from the area because all the ranch land was flooded. Today, a year later, people are still living in communities outside their own areas, like Winnipeg and Pinawa, instead of living in their own reserves, municipalities and communities. Houses are still under water because the Manitoba government has failed to develop a natural outlet for Lake Manitoba or to provide dollars to allow individuals to fix their homes. This has carried on far too long.

As for agriculture, we are working for our agriculture producers. We are going to allow them to take control of their own PFRA pastures and set their own rates rather than having government dictate to them how much they are going to get charged for grazing in community pastures.

Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

Mr. Speaker, the member points out the badness of what is being considered. He mentioned 2¢ or 2.5¢ a litre on gas and the effect that would have on the average consumer.

In 2008, the government promised to reduce diesel by 2¢. What happened to that?

Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, I thought reducing the cost of diesel fuel by 2¢ a litre was a great idea at first. Diesel fuel is the lifeline and lifeblood of rural Canada. All our goods and services, and our food, are produced using diesel. However, one of the fears that I had about this idea is that every time we vacate taxation levels, somebody else always backfills them.

That is what we have just experienced in Manitoba. We have decreased the GST, which reduced the costs of fuel in Manitoba by 2.5¢ a litre. What did the provincial NDP government do? It increased the price of fuel 2.5¢ a litre.

Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Merv Tweed Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Mr. Speaker, I too have experienced some of the devastation of the current government in Manitoba.

It is interesting that the member for Churchill would raise the issue of support for rural communities and rural parts of Manitoba. We have gone to great lengths to improve the conditions in Churchill, particularly with the port, and to improve economic activities.

Would the member comment on that and perhaps even elaborate further as to why the member for Churchill would vote against such an opportunity for her own community?

Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to learn today that OmniTRAX, the owner of the Hudson Bay rail line, had the dollars that we allocated in the budget to help offset the costs of moving grain into Churchill, to deal with the issue of moving grain up into the Churchill port.

I learned today that the entire program has been oversubscribed, meaning that over the next five years there will be more than enough grain moving up into Churchill, more than what was there in the past.

As well, OmniTRAX is pursuing the purchase of grain terminals and more marketing opportunities across the Prairies so that it can be another variable in the marketplace, allowing farmers a different place to sell and a different way to ship grain via the Churchill line.

Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to rise in the House today to speak on behalf of my constituents of Toronto—Danforth and all Canadians who are deeply worried by the Conservative government's assault on democracy in the form of this omnibus budget implementation act.

A full one-third of Bill C-38 is dedicated to the gutting of environmental regulation and protection. In addition, the bill includes a series of previously unannounced measures that will contribute to a less transparent and more secretive environment.

These measures include a massive gutting of the powers of the Auditor General'. In addition to the content of the bill, we take issue with its undemocratic nature.

The Conservatives truly are trying to hide from oversight and avoid accountability with this bill, both in terms of how it is going through the House and its content. It is inappropriate to put so many sweeping changes to so many different areas in a single budget bill. This is purely inappropriate legislative behaviour.

I will touch on just some of the areas hammered by Bill C-38, starting with the environment. This week, 10 of the leading environmental organizations launched a protest campaign to raise awareness of the huge threat the Conservative budget represents to the environment. However, they equally wish us all to understand the onslaught against democracy itself represented by this bill. Parliamentary democracy is under assault by the wholesale regressive transformation of federal environmental law without serious opportunity to debate and scrutinize, and much of the change in the budget bill is transparently intended to cripple the elements of participatory democracy that are part of current environmental law.

The campaign of these 10 brave groups is called Black Out Speak Out or Silence, on parle! in French, and it asks Canadians to darken their websites on June 4 as a form of collective national protest. Why do I say that they are brave? It is because members of the Conservative government have already attacked them as being radical, extremists and money launderers, and the budget itself seeks to chill their participation in education and advocacy around the environment by encouraging Revenue Canada to go after its charitable status. They know they will be targeted by the government and its big-oil partners and front groups.

In fact, the government has earmarked $8 million at least to help the Canada Revenue Agency go after charities ostensibly engaging in political activity or being funded by so-called foreign sources. In the hands of a government at war with environmental and social justice organizations, this is a frightening new spending initiative.

Finally, on the theme of the environment, I will mention a matter close to the hearts of the people of Toronto—Danforth. There is no renewal of the ecoenergy home retrofit program that was very popular with Toronto residents, including those in my riding and, most important, very valuable as a sustainability measure.

I will now pick up on the theme of removing oversight and accountability. The budget implementation bill would create a much more secretive and non-transparent government through removal and closure of oversight powers and bodies. Bill C-38 would eliminate the mandatory Auditor General oversight of financial performance and reporting by no less than 12 agencies by removing provisions that require the Auditor General to audit accounts, financial statements and financial transactions. This includes the Canada Revenue Agency, ironically enough.

As if that were not enough, it would also eliminate the position of the Inspector General for the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service, which would drastically reduce accountability at CSIS, especially since we know that the Inspector General's recent reports have been critical of CSIS and the government. I think it is fair to assume that this critical scrutiny is most probably the reason the Inspector General would be eliminated as an institution. Once again, this shows that the government is dealing another, not just hammer blow but sledgehammer blow to the core foundations of our democracy.

I will now briefly speak to old age security, OAS. I hope to speak later in the day on the private member's bill. I will simply say the obvious. The Conservatives did not campaign on cutting OAS. Davos was the context for the Prime Minister to spring this on us. Now we know that the age of eligibility will rise over time from 65 to 67.

“Rise over time” are the key words because that has allowed the government to spread the disingenuous message that it is not current seniors who need to worry about this budget, but those coming afterward who just have to plan their affairs. This is the ultimate in wedge politics.

Seniors who now know they are “safe”, in the government terms, however, are among the most outraged. I can attest to that by virtue of the most recent byelection campaign I was part of and talking to people since. They are thinking of those coming after them, unlike the government, and do not buy into the crass assumption that they will not care and, therefore, will vote for the Conservatives because they are shielded from the immediate effect.

On housing, the people of Toronto—Danforth are extremely disappointed that there is nothing for affordable nor social housing in the budget bill and this has been condemned by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which stated:

A healthy housing sector, able to meet a broad range of needs, is a vital part of the economic and social wellbeing of any community.

Local governments have been implementing an array of initiatives to increase and preserve the supply of rental and affordable housing. ...municipalities are doing their part; but they can’t do it alone.

Cities have clearly been left out on housing, on transit and on other fronts.

Furthermore, yesterday, the Mental Health Commission of Canada released its mental health strategy and stated the importance of affordable, secure and safe housing for people living with mental health problems and illnesses and yet there is nothing in this budget for them.

Other important cuts are buried in the bill and/or indirectly created by the bill, such as cuts to CBC Radio drama. As we know, all drama programming of Radio One has been eliminated. I have been receiving many complaints from my constituents. One wrote the following:

...cutting the CBC's budget is detrimental not only to the Canadian arts community and the listening public, but to political culture in Canada.

I could not agree more.

As demonstrated by an article in the The Globe and Mail on April 12 by Kelly Nestruck, drama programming nurtured numerous playwrights and actors and allowed them to gain national attention while furthering the public's understanding of politics and society.

Afghanada, for example, not only “was the source of employment of an astonishing number of young Canadian playwrights”, but it also was the only drama to further our understanding of the causes and the legacy of the Canadian Forces mission in Afghanistan until the very recent wave of stage plays have finally rolled out.

It is a shame that the government is cutting spending on areas like CBC Radio drama that have had a long and culturally valuable history of informing, stimulating and, yes indeed, entertaining Canadians.

To conclude, the Conservatives clearly do not understand the connections between healthy communities and the health of the economy.

So what are we doing about it? These sweeping changes are going through the wrong forum. They should not be hidden in a budget bill in this manner. Trojan Horse budget bills should not become the new normal.

If the government is not afraid of being held accountable, it should agree to work with us in order to split this bill up into several bills.

Unfortunately, it appears that the government has already rejected the possibility of splitting this bill into more manageable tranches for Parliament to study. I hope there is still time for it to reconsider.

Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech on this matter.

Since he arrived in the House relatively recently, I would like to ask him if he is disappointed at the level of democracy that is currently being practised in Canada.

Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will hold off in my judgment for just a little bit longer. However, I do feel like we are on the cusp of perhaps the most anti-democratic era in the history of this country. There are too many signs for us to ignore and, if we keep ignoring them, we will be in deep trouble.

Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

Mr. Speaker, would my hon. colleague give us his thoughts on the proposed changes to the OAS where the government has talked about this supposed crisis?

The government claims that the OAS will be unaffordable and yet it cannot really point to any expert opinion that says that. Its own government reports say that it is not in jeopardy and that there is no issue of affordability. The OECD says that there is no issue with affordability.

We know that 40% of the people who receive OAS have incomes of $20,000 or less each year and yet the government wants to make them wait two more years, which could cost them as much as $30,000 and cause real hardship as they are waiting to receive this assistance.

Would my hon. colleagues like to comment on this decision by the government?

Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

NDP

Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Halifax West did a good job setting out some fundamental premises with which I agree.

It is very important to note that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has shown that it is not necessary to do what the government is planning to do and that the OAS is sustainable.

However, quite apart from whether or not, for a certain period of time of 30 to 40 years, a certain percentage of the gross domestic product will need to be added to what is needed for OAS, the whole question is one of choices. We organize ourselves around that need. We know it is coming and we organize around it. We do not treat this as a permanent crisis.

It was also a little disappointing to hear in the House today during question period that one of the approaches the Conservative minister is taking is to reassure seniors that they will not be affected and emphasizes how important OAS is to them. However, even though in 10 years from now it will be equally important to those seniors, the Conservatives are after them now, which is unacceptable.

Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

NDP

Niki Ashton NDP Churchill, MB

Mr. Speaker, my question is for my hon. colleague from Toronto—Danforth, who I am thrilled is with us in the House.

I had the opportunity to visit his constituency along with him and to meet a lot of young people who are very concerned about their future. I was wondering if the member could comment on how disastrous this budget is when it comes to Canada's young people?

Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

NDP

Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that youth are ignored as a specific concern in the budget.

The government has taken care to say that its overall motivation is to stimulate prosperity even as it is predicting a loss of jobs as part of the budget. Hopefully, if it is correct, and we all hope it is correct, we will see some jobs out of this.

However, that is really not what youth expect right now. There is a great degree of worry and alienation among the youth with whom I have spoken. I have to say that the environmental provisions in this bill are probably bothering the youth in my riding as much as anything. They understand that they are ahead of the curve and ahead of the rest of us on the environment, and they are deeply disappointed with this part of the budget.

Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Conservative

Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to talk about how economic action plan 2012, our plan for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity, is benefiting Canada and, in particular, my area of southwestern Ontario. Southern Ontario is a region that was hard hit by the global recession. That is why our government responded with targeted action to develop and attract the high-paying, high-skilled jobs of tomorrow.

Our budget continues that good work and, in my riding of Brant, is moving in the right direction. In fact, budget 2012 is bursting with good news for southwestern Ontario and our economy, as the region continues to reposition itself for growth in the 21st century global economy. In particular, our budget will benefit many businesses in Brant, and in particular, manufacturers.

In our community, manufacturing has a very storied history. In fact, Brantford, at the turn of the century in the industrial revolution, was the third largest economy in this country, only behind Toronto and Montreal. Through the years, that manufacturing has evolved and changed. Some of it has gone to other jurisdictions. Some of it has become not relevant in today's economy.

Our community has survived through the years, and it is through the approaches of this particular action plan, this budget, that we will continue to look to companies to invest, to upgrade, to cut costs and enhance productivity, to increase their market share and to give them a competitive edge. These manufacturers know this is the goal of our government. It is to support them to create the jobs of tomorrow.

We have provided unprecedented support. We have lowered business taxes to 15% to help manufacturers keep more of their own money and invest and hire more employees. We are making Canada the first major economy to be a tariff-free zone for manufacturing to boost new investment and job creation. We have introduced temporary accelerated capital cost allowance tax relief to manufacturers to become more competitive when upgrading their machinery and equipment, and we are extending that tax relief in our 2012 action plan. We are also extending the domestic powers of Export Development Canada to provide financing support to Canadian manufacturers and exporters.

However, our government is not just investing so that manufacturers can create jobs today. Through unprecedented support for research, development and innovation, our government is ensuring that our region can create and retain the jobs of tomorrow.

We know the global economy is changing, and the pace of technological change is creating new opportunities every day. We also know that competition for the brightest minds is intensifying. To secure our long-term competitiveness, southern Ontario must lead in the knowledge economy, and we must foster global competitive businesses that innovate and create high-quality jobs.

Our government realizes this reality. That is why we have already provided almost $8 billion in new funding to support science, technology and the growth of innovative firms. That is why we continue to invest.

Budget 2012 provides another $1.1 billion in direct support for research, development and innovation. This funding builds on our government's technology strategy, which emphasizes the importance of ensuring that federally supported research contributes to the commercialization of new products, processes and services. Also, this funding acts upon key recommendations of the Jenkins report, by investing to make it easier for entrepreneurs to access venture capital.

It is all about supporting Canadian innovation from the idea phase to commercialization and distribution. Our commitment to research and innovation will benefit our students, families and businesses for years to come. Our commitment in this regard has not gone unnoticed. Here is what Stephen Toope, chairman of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada's board of directors had to say:

In the face of tough fiscal choices, the government showed leadership by continuing its investments in research, innovation, research infrastructure and university-private sector collaborations.... These investments will build a stronger future for our society and economy.

AUCC president Paul Davidson went on to note that, “We're also pleased the budget recognizes the importance of deepening international education and research linkages”.

Recently, I had the privilege of joining the AUCC on a mission to Brazil. While there, it was announced by the Brazilian president that 12,000 Brazilian students would be fully funded to study in Canada. This is a superb example of how our government is moving forward to have the best minds, the best students, graduating from our institutions on an international basis, so that we can collaborate with our international partners in making sure we can compete in the global economy. Many of these individuals who will receive these scholarships will end up having connections to businesses; they will have experience in apprenticeships with Canadian companies; and they will have the ties to create the linkages to businesses of the future.

The budget, our 2012 budget, takes the long-term view for Canada's prosperity. It is prosperity that will last for generations as we go forward.

In my riding and others like it, we did experience hardship in the wake of the global economic downturn. Our local economy is turning the corner. Local companies are recognizing new opportunities in the global economy and taking action to capitalize on these opportunities.

Our businesses are forging those strategic partnerships with our blossoming post-secondary institutions. Our municipalities are attracting new investments and highlighting the benefits of locating or expanding in our region.

For many years, my community suffered with high rates of unemployment because of the evolution of manufacturing and the fact that the new knowledge economy was replacing, in many ways, the older manufacturing of the past. We are survivors and have survived it.

However, we must recognize that Canadian business, to compete globally, must have a competitive advantage. One of the great advantages we see in the future is investing in the brightest and the best in the areas where our country needs expertise to move us forward.

The budget is long-term thinking. It is one on which I have heard so much positive feedback from different sectors, the educational sector, the business sector, as the right way to go at this time for our country.

I encourage all parliamentarians to support the budget.

Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Pierre Jacob NDP Brome—Missisquoi, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to explain why this government cannot demonstrate accountability and transparency with respect to its omnibus Bill C-38.

In their 2011 election platform, the Conservatives promised not to reduce transfer payments to individuals or the provinces for essentials, such as health care, education and pensions.

Then, on June 7, 2011, the Prime Minister rose in the House of Commons and said, “Our government has been very clear. We will not cut pensions.”

Why are his statements so unacceptably inconsistent? I would like the member opposite to explain to me why the Conservatives misled Quebeckers and Canadians.

Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

May 10th, 2012 / 4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth, as far as inconsistencies go. This has been a consistent thread of our government's budget policies for the last six years.

I might mention to the member that in actual fact, if he cares to look at the actual expenditures of government through the budgets, we have increased the funding to provinces and territories over the last six years consistently and have said we would increase their budgets.

Now, we are responsible, as the federal government, to make sure long-term funding is in place. In fact, in my province of Ontario, it is at record levels. It is just under $20 billion of funding that we have provided in this last fiscal year to our province. The provinces, of course, take on their responsibilities and decide what they are going to do with that money.

The actual fact is, and the record shows, that we have been funding provinces and territories far beyond any government previously.

Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Cambridge Ontario

Conservative

Gary Goodyear ConservativeMinister of State (Science and Technology) (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario)

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is absolutely correct; budget 2012 is a plan for economic growth and long-term prosperity, which is a unique position for Canada. With the strength of our economy now, we can look forward five years out, decades out.

My question centres on innovation and the support for science and technology, which we have consistently seen grow with every single budget we have ever had. We hear some concerns from the opposite side about how big the budget is. Of course it is big. We have an opportunity in Canada to take advantage of leading many of the industrialized nations. We have an opportunity, and in 20 years we would be ashamed of ourselves if we had not taken it.

I believe we should vote yes for this budget because it signifies a change and an innovation. Would the member agree?

Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON

Mr. Speaker, that was an excellent description of exactly what we are intending to do and have staged in actual previous budgets leading into this one. There is an opportunity ahead for the next generations, for my children and for my grandchildren. Creating the platform now will give them the prosperity in the future that makes this country the greatest country in the world.

We have at times undersold the great resources that we have, and our best resource is our people. Therefore, rewarding the best and the brightest now will pay dividends for many generations to come.

Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Élaine Michaud NDP Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC

Mr. Speaker, today I will join many of my colleagues in opposing the legislative monstrosity that is Bill C-38. The stated purpose of this omnibus bill, which is over 420 pages long, is to implement budget 2012, but it contains numerous measures that have nothing to do with the budget per se and that were never announced to Canadians.

Bill C-38 constitutes a direct attack on transparency, in terms of both its substance and the way the government is imposing its ideological vision of the country on Canadians by attempting to stifle and discredit all opposition to its dogmatic approach.

The Conservatives began by limiting the amount of time opposition parties could spend studying and debating this massive and destructive bill. They know that the devil is in the details, and they do not want to give us a chance to warn Canadians about what they are doing.

The fact that members had very little time to carefully review and analyze this bill makes it practically impossible to get an accurate picture of how Bill C-38 will affect people. This way of doing things is unacceptable and proves the government's contempt for Parliament and our institutions.

The Conservatives also have an unfortunate tendency to make fun of those who oppose their vision and their way of doing things, which, frankly, are better suited to an autocracy than to the Parliament of Canada. Those who oppose Bill C-38, whether they be parliamentarians or ordinary Canadians, are often described by the members opposite as people who are trying to create division in Canada or who simply do not understand what the government is trying to do.

Opponents are described as big bad socialists who are manipulating the media and public opinion and who simply want to impose their will on Canadians no matter what the cost and with no thought for the common good. This typically Conservative way of talking about opponents is an insult to Canadians' intelligence.

Did the fall of the Wildrose Party not teach them that Canadians do not like mean-spirited generalizations? In my riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, I have even met people who were members of the Conservative Party but who sent their membership cards back to the party in protest at this way of doing things. They approve of the ideas being put forward by the Conservatives, but they refuse to support this lack of democracy and the way the Conservatives are forcing positions on Canadians that they do not share.

Canadians have the right to accurate and honest information about what the government is doing on their behalf. In its election campaign, this government promised everyone that it would be a transparent and accountable government. But that has not been the case since it came into power. Quite the contrary.

Bill C-38 is further proof that the Conservatives cannot be trusted. Canadians hesitated for a long time to give a majority to this government because they were afraid of its hidden agenda. They were right to be afraid.

As I mentioned before, this budget implementation bill goes well beyond the budget and contains a number of important changes that were not mentioned in the election campaign or even afterwards. This bill will forever change Canadian society, and it will not be for the better.

At least one-third of this bill seeks to greatly undermine if not virtually decimate the system of environmental protections, assessments and regulations that protect Canadian fauna, waterways and ecosystems, to permit the unrestricted development of our natural resources, just like in the Duplessis era.

The Conservatives do not have a strategy for developing renewable energy and reducing the use of fossil fuels. Pipeline projects, which are so near and dear to the Conservatives' hearts, will be imposed on Canadians against their will in order to export our natural resources. Decidedly, with this government, the great darkness is back.

Bill C-38 considerably diminishes the Auditor General's oversight powers, including by eliminating his mandatory review of the financial statements of 12 government agencies. In light of the giant fiasco that is the F-35 procurement process and the lengths this government has gone to in order to hide the real cost of this purchase from Canadians, I can see why the government does not want the Auditor General to have too many powers.

This legislative Trojan Horse also seeks to raise the eligibility age for old age security and the guaranteed income supplement from 65 to 67. This change, which will not affect many MPs here right now, will directly affect my generation and will make our seniors in need even more vulnerable. The Prime Minister knows full well that the current system is still viable for many years to come and that these draconian cuts are unnecessary.

The government would save more money if it stopped wasting money on its plans for building megaprisons and on its questionable military procurements. It would not have to punish future generations, as it is doing right now.

We understand why the Prime Minister wanted to escape to Switzerland, rather than make that announcement here in Canada.

I could go on for hours about the devastating effect that budget 2012 and Bill C-38 will have on Canadian society and its institutions.

However, I would now like to focus more on how this bill will affect the people of my riding, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

Contrary to what the Conservatives seem to believe, not everyone in this country shares their vision and supports their way of governing—far from it, in fact. Every day, people come and see me and tell me how ashamed they are of this government, of Canada's image in the rest of the world and of the Conservatives' lack of environmental conscience.

The people of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier cannot relate to this government, since it does not share their values and it prefers to ignore their needs and requests. People are feeling betrayed and abandoned by the Conservatives, who appear to be governing only for the benefit of their friends.

This government keeps repeating that the budget focuses on job creation, yet the Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed that over 43,000 jobs will be lost, including over 19,000 in the public service.

The fact is that this budget forecasts higher unemployment, of all things. How is that good news for the people of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier who have lost their jobs or are about to? It is very hard to follow this government's logic.

The first round of cuts at CFB Valcartier has been announced. At least 160 military support jobs will be lost, and that is just what we know so far.

The government is so stingy with the details that information comes out in dribs and drabs. That makes it very hard to get a clear sense of how their decisions will affect people.

With its 7,000 employees, CFB Valcartier is the largest federal employer in my riding, and I know that job losses there will have a very negative impact on the region's economy.

The cuts will affect about 100 families in my riding and the surrounding area, and merchants in neighbouring municipalities will feel the pinch as well, because local people will have less and less money to spend on their products and keep the economy going.

I cannot understand how Conservative members from the Quebec City region can endorse measures that will have such a negative impact on the local economy in their own ridings. That makes no sense to me.

In addition, if these cuts in support services to the military are combined with the cuts in direct services provided in the offices of the Department of Veterans Affairs, questions may well be asked about the real consideration that this government has given to the military in the Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier and Quebec City regions.

Furthermore, absolutely nothing has been done to help the forestry workers in my riding, who have seen their mills go bankrupt one after another and who find themselves unemployed and unable to support their families.

There is no investment in helping the forestry industry, which is a very important sector of Quebec's economy, and particularly in the Portneuf region.

The Conservatives boast about having done more than anyone else to create manufacturing jobs, but where are the results? Where are the jobs in Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier?

Finally, the residents in my riding are particularly concerned about the major changes that this government wants to make to our system of environmental assessments for the benefit of big oil companies.

Have the Conservatives learned nothing from past experience? This week, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development reported that there are tens of thousands of contaminated federal sites, whose decontamination would cost more than $7 billion.

One of these sites, located in Shannon, is well known to Quebeckers. This tragic story of groundwater contaminated by TCE is unfortunately still going on today, and this government is refusing to live up to its responsibilities and take quick action to decontaminate the affected sites.

All possible measures must be taken to prevent toxic chemicals from finding their way into our ecosystems. One of the best ways of doing so is to ensure that comprehensive environmental assessments are carried out before each new natural resources development project. The time period over which these assessments are carried out must never be reduced, and the opportunity to speak out on such projects must never be restricted, yet two of the new measures this government wants to impose on us would do just that.

The residents of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier and particularly the residents of Shannon know only too well the devastation caused by the contamination of water and soil and do not want these sorts of tragedies to happen again.

How can this government justify putting the lives of Canadians in danger with Bill C-38? It is absolutely unthinkable.

In conclusion—and I know I only have a little time left—I want to use my time to congratulate my colleague from Parkdale-High Park, who proposed a first-rate motion to amend this bill, which is totally unacceptable in its current form. I would like to congratulate her on her outstanding work on this issue. The solutions she is putting forward are sensible, rational and reasonable and should be implemented. My colleagues and I will continue to work with this aim in mind.

Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

NDP

Pierre Dionne Labelle NDP Rivière-du-Nord, QC

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate my colleague. She gave a brilliant speech on the hidden aspects of this budget.

I would like to ask her to come back to the issue of retirement at age 67. My grandfather worked all his life in a factory, and I must say that when he retired at 65, he was completely burnt out. My father was a firefighter. I have difficulty picturing a 67-year-old firefighter climbing a ladder to save people from a burning building.

Could my colleague comment on that, that is, on the case of construction workers and all those who have physically demanding jobs or even those whose jobs involve more intellectual activities but who, as time goes on, may not be able to do them as well as they once did? I find this situation ironic given that productivity is a priority in Canada.

Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

NDP

Élaine Michaud NDP Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord for his very relevant question.

People who work in more physically demanding jobs, who have to do heavy lifting and the like, will not necessarily be able to continue working until they are 67. It is extremely difficult for these people who work, who are productive members of our society and who do not abuse the employment insurance system. These people are productive and essential. It is the government's duty to ensure that they have the support they need so that they can enjoy a well-deserved retirement and live in dignity.

This measure that the government wants to impose does not follow this logic at all and will not give the needed support to these people, who deserve to be taken care of when they are no longer able to take care of themselves.

Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Ray Boughen Conservative Palliser, SK

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment on a comment. The member for Rivière-du-Nord said that the change in the pension plan would affect his father. If his father is 54 years of age or over, there will be no change in his plan. I do not quite understand where those numbers came from. Maybe the member could share that with us.

Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

NDP

Pierre Dionne Labelle NDP Rivière-du-Nord, QC

Mr. Speaker, the member is saying things that I never said. I would like my comments to be checked. I did not say that.

Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

The Chair will look at the comments that were made and come back to the House, if there is a need to.

The hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.