Élaine Michaud

[Language Skills Act, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today in the House to support Bill C-419, An Act respecting language skills. I want to take a moment to congratulate and thank my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent for doing an exceptional job in bringing this bill before the House. This matter is one that needed to be raised and this could never have been accomplished in committee. I would also like to acknowledge the tireless efforts of my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst on behalf of official language minority communities.

If Bill C-419 is adopted, hopefully without amendment, it will ensure that future appointees to the 10 officer of Parliament positions will be required to be bilingual at the time of their appointment.

Earlier, my colleague listed the 10 offices covered by the bill, so I will not bother repeating them.

The bill would require persons appointed to these offices to be able to express themselves clearly in English and French and to understand both languages without the help of an interpreter at the time of their appointment.

Each office targeted by the bill was created pursuant to legislation setting out the terms and conditions of appointment and the nature of the office’s relationship with Parliament.

Officers of Parliament have a special, close relationship with Parliament and elected officials. They interact on a regular basis with parliamentarians. For that reason, it is very important that incumbents of these key offices understand and speak both official languages at the time of their appointment.

My colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent has already explained the crucial roles played by the officers of Parliament targeted by the bill. In light of these roles it is critically important that they be able to interact in both official languages in order to carry out their mandate effectively, while helping to preserve and uphold Canada’s linguistic duality, a value of tremendous importance to NDP members and many other MPs from all parties represented in the House.

In the past, there was a custom in Parliament that the government would generally appoint bilingual individuals to officer of Parliament positions. Unfortunately, in the fall of 2011, the Conservative government decided to completely ignore that custom and made the extremely controversial appointment of a unilingual English-speaking Auditor General, in spite of the fact that the job posting clearly stated that proficiency in both official languages was an essential requirement for appointment to the position.

That decision was a clear insult to francophone communities in and outside of Quebec, an insult magnified by claims that no bilingual candidate could be found who was as qualified as the unilingual anglophone candidate.

I still remember the indignation of the member for Ottawa—Orléans, a Conservative member, who voiced his objections at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages. He spoke out against his government's decision. And so from the outset, there was no unanimity either among the Conservatives or in the opposition.

Given the little regard the Conservatives have for the importance of that custom, which recognizes that English and French have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of Parliament, francophones in Canada have reason to ask questions and to be concerned.

Given the ease with which the government broke that tradition, which was designed to ensure that the language rights of Canadians and of their elected representatives are respected, and the ease with which it ignored a crucial prerequisite for the position of Auditor General of Canada, it seems clear to me that we need to enact Bill C-419 now, to prevent this kind of situation from happening again.

I listened carefully to the speech by the Minister of Industry a little earlier, and I would like to set the record straight.

I am fortunate to sit on the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Over the course of the various studies and meetings we had with various groups of witnesses, I observed that the Conservatives’ standard for bilingualism was not what was advocated by most official language minority groups. Since winning a majority, the Conservatives have made many decisions that strongly suggest that bilingualism is not a priority for them, even though they have decided today to support the bill in principle. They want to propose amendments.

They are not yet ready to decree that the people who work in the 10 positions listed in the bill must be bilingual upon assuming office. The willingness expressed today does not change the Conservatives' record since they won a majority.

There was a great deal of debate about the appointment of a unilingual anglophone Auditor General who, to this day, still cannot answer any questions asked of him in French at press conferences. This is a problem, because he was supposed to be able to speak fluent French within a year, which is impossible. I am also thinking of the appointment of Supreme Court judges and the closure of the library at the Maurice Lamontagne Institute, the only French-language science library at Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Those decisions were made at the expense of the needs and best interests of francophone communities across Canada. They also fly in the face of the government's obligation to comply with the Official Languages Act and to ensure respect for our languages and the accessibility of services in French in all federal institutions.

Another government decision demonstrates its indifference towards linguistic duality, and that is its careless and ill-advised decision to close the maritime search and rescue centre in Quebec City. It is the only centre of its kind in Canada that can provide emergency services in French to the francophone recreational boaters and fishers in the St. Lawrence River.

In addition to answering over 1,500 distress calls in French every year, the search and rescue centre officers help coordinate ground operations. They work with local stakeholders who often speak only French. The need to be understood in one's mother tongue during an emergency at sea is obvious. The government's decision could put many people's lives at risk, or even worse, cause loss of life.

On the other side of the House, the Conservatives are saying that this will not be a problem and that bilingual services can be provided by the centres in Trenton and Halifax, but we know that that is not the case. Several groups and organizations have already publicly called on the government to reverse its decision. Even the Commissioner of Official Languages has expressed his concerns to the government, but so far, he has had no response.

On November 19, the NDP held public hearings in Quebec City regarding the closure of the maritime search and rescue centre. We heard the same thing from the Corporation des pilotes du St-Laurent central, the staff of the emergency centres and a retired employee of the maritime search and rescue centre, among others. Clearly, this decision goes against the best interests of our francophone communities.

Given all the troubling findings I have just mentioned, we very clearly need a bill such as the one introduced by the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent in order to protect Canada's linguistic duality and stand up for the French language in Quebec and Canada by taking real action. We must do so now.

The Prime Minister allegedly admitted that this decision was a mistake. In my opinion, it is too little, too late. This decision should never have been made since, from the very first day, the job posting very clearly indicated that the candidate had to be proficient in both official languages. We should never have to discuss this basic principle since it is in our Constitution and is part of our laws and our parliamentary work in its simplest form. We must ensure that all elected MPs can represent their constituents and do their work properly. To do so, they must be able to interact with the officers of Parliament in the language of their choice, which will make their work as efficient as possible and allow them to properly represent their constituents.

We are not asking that all public servants be bilingual. We understand that that is an unattainable goal. We cannot force everyone to be bilingual. What is more, it is unnecessary in many parts of Canada. However, it is essential that the people who hold the 10 key positions set out in my colleague's bill be bilingual because they interact with the public, hold press conferences and provide direct services to Canadians and elected members. There is no question when it comes to these people: they should simply be bilingual from the day they take office. Our country is based on the principle of linguistic duality, and that should be reflected in all the appointments the government makes to important positions such as these.

I hope that members of all parties will support this bill as it is written because it is exactly what francophone communities in Canada need.

[Radiocommunication Act, December 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House today to support Bill C-429, An Act to amend the Radiocommunication Act and the Telecommunications Act (antenna systems), introduced by the hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant.

This bill is particularly important because it affects each and every one of our ridings. I am pleased that we have the opportunity to examine this issue today.

This bill seeks to legislate the implementation and construction process of antenna systems, and to ensure the balanced development of telecommunications antennas, among others, by involving local authorities in these processes.

As we know, the telecommunications industry is growing in Canada, and we all benefit from it because we can fully enjoy its services.

This industry is essential to ensuring that Canadian businesses remain competitive and that every citizen can remain in constant contact with people around him, both on a personal and professional level.

As members of Parliament, and given the importance of BlackBerrys, emails and other forms of communication in our daily lives, we are all very aware of the importance of the telecommunications industry in our lives and in the lives of our constituents.

However, we have to admit that the current development of telecommunications towers in Canadian municipalities is poorly managed, and that the regulatory framework established by Industry Canada is unable to meet the concerns of thousands of citizens and hundreds of municipal officials.

Indeed, Industry Canada's directive CPC-2-0-03, which governs the telecommunications industry, does not include any compulsory public consultations for the construction of towers less than 15 metres high, and does not require the involvement of local authorities in the implementation process of telecommunications antennas.

Moreover, while this directive includes sanctions for non-compliance with the established regulatory framework, it seems Industry Canada does not impose these sanctions on offenders.

In June, at the last convention of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities held in Saskatoon, I had the opportunity to attend a panel on telecommunications antennas in municipalities. The participants included Bernard Lord, Industry Canada officials and, of course, municipal councillors and mayors from all regions of the country. What I heard at that panel was not particularly good nor very flattering for Industry Canada, quite the contrary. There was a lot of frustration and discontent directed at Industry Canada officials and Mr. Lord.

All that frustration convinced me of the urgent need to review the existing regulations to better harmonize the implementation process of telecommunications antennas in our municipalities.

Bill C-429 seeks to respond to the frustrations felt by citizens and municipal officials by regulating the siting and construction of antenna systems, while also democratizing the process by involving the land-use authorities, that is the municipalities, as well as citizens in the decision-making process.

First of all, this bill simplifies the application process for the shared use of antenna sites by telecommunications companies, in order to limit the unnecessary proliferation of new towers in our municipalities, which seems to be happening all across Canada.

Bill C-429 also grants the CRTC oversight power and the authority to rule on disputes regarding tower sharing, which will have the advantage of creating a single forum independent of government to resolve any disputes that arise between telecommunications companies.

In addition, the bill compels these companies to hold public consultations before constructing any tower, regardless of its height, except in cases where the construction will not hurt anyone.

For instance, my riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier has some very isolated, rural municipalities. I am thinking of places like Rivière-à-Pierre, where there is no cellular service. No companies serve that region. I can assure you that the people of Rivière-à-Pierre would very much like to have a telecommunications tower in order to have cellular service in their municipality. I have no doubt that that exception would easily apply in that municipality, since there is an urgent need there.

Lastly, Bill C-429 would also require proponents to consult the local land-use authority, namely the municipality, in order to determine the local requirements and ensure that the siting of a telecommunications antenna fits in with the municipality's local development plans.

When we talk about local requirements, we are talking about a public consultation process that has already been established by the authority, discussions regarding possible tower locations and the response to reasonable and relevant concerns of the municipality and community involved. Nothing outlandish is being requested—quite the contrary.

It is important to remember that land use falls under provincial jurisdiction and is delegated to the municipalities. It is necessary to ensure that they are able to fully exercise their jurisdiction over their own land, and it is absolutely essential that antenna systems are developed collaboratively in keeping with the municipal or rural land use plan.

The purpose of the bill is certainly not to harm the industry, which is extremely important to Canada. What is more, there will not be any regulatory duplication, as some of the members opposite suggested. In fact, the existing requirements will be replaced with those set out in Bill C-429, so that particular problem will simply resolve itself once the bill is passed.

The bill introduced by the hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant addresses a clear demand from municipalities and individuals who currently have no recourse at all when a telecommunications tower is erected in their municipality in a place that neither members of the community nor municipal officials find suitable.

This problem is not specific to the telecommunications industry. In fact, a number of other areas of exclusive federal jurisdiction are experiencing the same problem, since the government refuses to exercise its jurisdiction and regulate it fully, under the pretext that it does not want to harm the industry. However, the government is forgetting all the people who are directly affected by this, individuals and municipal officials, who have development plans for their cities and who, sometimes, in certain regions, have to protect farmland, which is becoming increasingly rare. All of these considerations need to be taken into account but are ignored in areas of exclusive federal jurisdiction.

I have in mind an example that affects my riding in particular, and that is the aerospace industry. The existing regulations for the construction of private airports are fairly similar to those in effect for telecommunications antennas. This area is largely unregulated, which means that private developers have a great deal of latitude and can pretty much do what they want at Canadians' expense.

Private airports, specifically, can be put anywhere in a zone considered undeveloped, without the need to consult with elected municipal officials and the public. For antennas over 15 metres it amounts to the same problem. There is the case of the unwanted construction of a private airport in Neuville. Despite opposition from hundreds of citizens and the municipal council, petitions, protests and multiple calls on Parliament to have the minister ask the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities to conduct a study to address the harmonization issues between federal and provincial areas of jurisdiction, nothing has been done and the public has no protection or recourse. This is the same situation.

The protection of land and farmland, and land use are all exclusive provincial jurisdictions, but that fact is overlooked to the benefit of rich private developers, whether it is to build telecommunications antennas or airports. It is the same situation here, and it is a problem. That is why I thank the member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant for introducing this kind of bill. He is forcing us to think about the needs of the provinces and municipalities and their responsibilities towards the public. It also enables us to better protect our own constituents, the people we represent.

Bill C-429 responds to a real need. I hope it will be supported by members of all the parties in the House. The public and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities clearly support my colleague's bill. I hope that members from each party will do the same.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, December 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague very much.

Unfortunately, every opposition member has experienced this kind of situation, whether in committee or the House. We are all, unfortunately, familiar with the intransigence of a majority government, and that is not the way things should work.

Our experience today of Bill C-15 is a reminder of what has occurred previously in this House, whether in relation to omnibus bills or other problems that have warranted consideration in committee. For example, Quebec's centre for maritime research and rescue has been denied a voice in every forum it has sought one. What we are seeing here is symptomatic of what can be found in all Conservative bills: contempt for the opposition, nothing less.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, December 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

It is an important amendment, which affects the composition of the grievance board. Currently, retired or former members who left the Canadian Forces as recently as a couple of years ago, sit on the committee. This means that the door is still open to conflicts of interest and other problems.

Justice and fair procedures for all are a must. This is why the amendment was introduced. I would like to reiterate just how important it is that the work done in committee—were the bill to be adopted at report stage—include this type of amendment, which has already been approved by members of all stripes in this House. Work done in the past must not go by the wayside and should be taken into account in the committee's current work.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, December 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

In fact, I researched this issue at length because my mother, up until quite recently, was coxswain in the navy. That was her main responsibility and we discussed her role at length. Even if there are only two situations that can result in a criminal record, it is still disconcerting that proceedings can take place without a lawyer present, and that the judge is the commanding officer of the accused.

The conflicts of interest that were originally a problem remain so. Members of the military may opt for a summary trial because the consequences of a court martial might be worse. The options open to the military are quite limited when it comes to the manner in which they are disciplined.

It is important to think through the issues. Despite my colleague's comments, the amendments proposed by the NDP are reasonable and should be adopted in committee.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, December 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Many of my colleagues have already spoken about this bill, today and during previous days. I am very pleased to join their ranks today. Despite what we sometimes hear, the NDP has been in favour of making the necessary updates to the military justice system for a long time now, and we have been working to improve and strengthen this system of justice.

Members of the Canadian forces are subject to extremely high standards of discipline and they deserve to have a justice system that is held to the same high standard.

Before going any further in my discussion about Bill C-15, I would like to take a moment to thank my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan for her very appropriate comments about military justice for our veterans.

I come from the riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, where the Valcartier military base is located. A number of troops have been sent to Afghanistan over the past few years. Some of them are my age and others are younger than I am. When they come back, they do not have the services they deserve. Sometimes they are relieved of their duties after a year, without any forces' support. They receive a lump sum and that is it. Once that money has been spent, our troops no longer have any support from the government. However, they deserve more, because they gave their lives, they sacrificed time that they could have been spending with their family and they sacrificed many things in the service of their country. They deserve a lot more than they are getting right now. Therefore, I would like to thank my colleague and I would like to take the time to thank the troops. As there have been members of my family in the military for a number of generations, I understand all the sacrifices that choosing this career can have on families.

To come back to Bill C-15, it is a response to a series of 88 recommendations made in 2003 by the Honourable Antonio Lamer, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his report on the independent review of the National Defence Act.

His recommendations were presented almost 10 years ago now and dealt primarily with the military justice system, the Military Police Complaints Commission, the grievance process and the Canadian Forces provost marshal.

When the Lamer report was tabled, the Liberals were in power. At the time, they said they supported the report’s recommendations, but they never took any concrete action to follow them up. In successive parliaments, a number of bills have been introduced in the House, which were attempts to develop an adequate response to the recommendations presented in the Lamer report. However, all of these responses died on the order paper.

One of the bills introduced in a previous Parliament was Bill C-41, in 2010. There was a great deal of discussion about it in the House. The bill contained provisions relating to military justice, and involved reforms to the sentencing process following an offence, military judges and military panels, summary trials and many other issues.

This bill was studied in detail in committee, and some amendments were proposed and accepted by all the parties, including the NDP. All the parties were able to agree on a bill that put forward a more balanced approach to military justice.

Now, Bill C-15 is clearly a first step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough to try to bring the military justice system and the civilian justice system closer together. Bill C-15 includes several provisions that were in Bill C-41. However, many were not included in the new version of the bill, including amendments that were proposed by the NDP about the authority of the Chief of Defence Staff in the grievance process, changes in the composition of the grievance board to ensure that members were 60% civilians, and the provision to ensure that a person convicted in a summary trial is not unjustly subjected to a criminal record.

The NDP believes that Bill C-15, if it gets through second reading, needs to be thoroughly reworked to correct the many shortcomings it still contains, such as how the summary trial issue is dealt with.

The summary trial is by far the most common kind of military tribunal in the military justice system. Indeed, more than 90% of disciplinary proceedings are handled in this manner. Summary trials were designed to address minor military offences in a context in which the sentences available are limited.

These minor offences include insubordination, quarrels, misconduct, being absent without leave, drunkenness and disobeying an order.

Summary trials attempt to deal quickly with the presumed offences within the unit in order to be able to return the member to active service as quickly as possible, thereby promoting and maintaining discipline within the unit. With the exception of a number of specified offences, an accused may choose between a summary trial or a court martial, which is generally for more serious offences and involves more complex procedures.

Summary trials differ from civilian judicial proceedings in several ways. First of all, in a summary trial, there is no transcript of the proceedings, and the accused's commanding officer presides. This alone gives rise to concerns about the potential for conflicts of interest. In addition, the accused are not given the opportunity to consult a legal advisor during proceedings, and the sentence handed down as a result of a summary trial cannot be appealed.

Lastly, a conviction in a summary trial in the Canadian Forces results in a criminal record for the accused, which seems much too severe for many of the minor offences.

Yes, under Bill C-15 certain offences that are subject to minor sentences or fines less than $500, would be exempt from resulting in a criminal record. That is positive, but we think that does not go far enough.

A criminal record makes post-military life very difficult, particularly when it comes to looking for a new job, renting an apartment, travelling and many other things. We know that returning to civilian life after being deployed overseas or after spending a certain amount of time in the armed forces is not always very easy. There are not always equivalents for skills transferred between various jobs. These people need a lot of support. They may need to take various remedial courses, or new training to be able to return to civilian life. This involves a lot of effort in a situation that is already so difficult. If you add to that the fact that an individual has a criminal record for a minor offence as a result of a summary trial, that really undermines the lives of certain military members. They are deprived of certain charter rights.

It is hard to imagine that soldiers who sacrifice themselves, who risk everything in the service of their country, can have a criminal record as a result of a system that does not have the regularity of the process used in civilian criminal courts. I understand that the Canadian Forces have established a code of conduct under which standards are quite strict in order to meet a genuine operational need. We cannot deny that. Discipline, obeying orders and hierarchy have a specific purpose and are essential to the proper operation of the unit and the survival of soldiers in combat situations. That is clear. However, it is nevertheless disturbing that military members can be deprived of certain charter rights when they undergo a summary trial. The NDP believes that the Canadian military justice system should be genuinely just and fair for men and women in uniform who have risked their lives in the service of Canada.

Several Commonwealth countries such as Great Britain, Ireland, New Zealand and Australia have already made significant changes to their summary trial system. Why not Canada? Why does Canada still lag behind, and why have we not yet implemented all the recommendations of the Lamer report?

If Bill C-15 passes second reading and is referred to committee, it is essential that we come up with a bill similar to what was introduced in Bill C-41. The work done at that time represented a consensus among all the parties. It should not be shelved simply because the Conservative government now has a majority.

The amendments discussed last spring could have been included in the present version of Bill C-15, and we would not be here today. We would not still be engaged in the debate that we are having in this House; we would already be dealing with a much more balanced bill for our military justice system. That is what we are all trying to achieve. That is why the NDP continues this debate in this House. This is a very important issue for our troops and we must debate it thoroughly.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, December 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, one might find such a strategy in the NDP's platform, but certainly not in the Conservatives' budget implementation bill.

It gets worse. Based on what is being proposed, 102,000 more jobs could be lost and not just in the public service. This is a problem. The government is not creating jobs; jobs disappear faster than the government can create them.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, December 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Beauport—Limoilou for his excellent question that will allow me to continue the point I started earlier.

A number of Conservatives have already asked in the House how NDP members could be opposed to a budget that includes a tax credit for small businesses. Although I must say that this is an excellent tax credit, it will end in about 20 days. They will blame us for all kinds of things like this, when what we oppose are the big measures, such as the gutting of the Navigable Waters Protection Act or the changes to support measures for research and development.

We cannot examine these issues and truly understand the effects they will have, since the government does not give us a chance to do our job, to examine the figures and call in the witnesses who deserve to be heard. I am talking not only about government witnesses, but also witnesses from all segments of society.

I could go on about this, but my time is running out. A number of my colleagues can continue to explain to the government all the problems with the omnibus bills it is introducing and how undemocratic they are.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, December 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Liberal colleague for his question. He often speaks in this House, and so I am not surprised that he has a question.

As I have said on many occasions and as a number of my colleagues have also said, omnibus bills are undemocratic and do not allow us to focus on each element that we want to discuss.

This subject seems to stir emotions. I hope that my Conservative colleagues are reacting because they believe that omnibus bills are totally unacceptable.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, December 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today once again to express my strong opposition to Bill C-45, the second omnibus budget bill that the Conservatives have introduced since the beginning of this Parliament.

I am deeply disappointed that, for the 31st time, the Conservatives have decided to silence a number of members. They will not have the opportunity that I have right now to speak out against this bill, which is going to have a major impact on their constituents. All the same, I am pleased to have a chance to defend the interests of the constituents of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier who are opposed to Bill C-45.

The government claims that this bill does nothing but implement measures already set out in the budget that was adopted last March and that it contains no surprises. We all know that this statement is totally false and that it is simply an attempt to mislead Canadians. This massive bill, with its more than 400 pages, contains many measures that were never announced when the budget was tabled and places even more power in the hands of Conservative ministers, something that we all want to prevent.

Right from the start, the NDP has deplored the fact that Bill C-45 is another attempt by the Conservatives to undermine hundreds of pieces of legislation without consulting with anyone and without having to account to anyone. The Conservatives are once again doing exactly the same thing they did the last time they introduced a budget bill, when they ripped holes in the Fisheries Act without consulting with fishers’ communities, when they made huge cuts to the employment insurance system, as if it belonged to them, without consulting the businesses or the workers that contribute to it, and when they made cuts to old age security and to health care transfers to the provinces. It is unbelievable that the same thing is happening again here in the House.

Despite our opposition and the opposition of thousands of Canadians throughout the country, the Conservatives are refusing to listen to reason and are forcing us to swallow a bill that will drastically affect the quality of our environment and the quality of Canadians’ lives today and well into the future. Even worse, the Conservatives are trying to hide the truth from Canadians by rushing the bill through as quickly as possible, without allowing members to give serious consideration to all the impacts that Bill C-45 will have on Canadians.

In the speech I gave in the House on this subject a few weeks ago, I mainly talked about matters of procedure and the anti-democratic nature of this bill. Since then, unfortunately, nothing has changed. We have seen this since the beginning of their mandate: the Conservatives have absolutely no scruples when it comes to limiting their opponents’ speaking time and flouting the democratic principles that have been at the heart of our parliamentary system since Confederation.

Bill C-45 is no exception to these new rules that the Conservatives want to impose on Parliament. The NDP has repeatedly asked this government to split this massive bill, so we can examine it in detail in committee and propose the amendments that are needed to make this bill acceptable, but of course the Conservatives have refused. Yes, a few committees were assigned to examine certain aspects of this bill, but given how little time the government allowed them to do their job, they were unable to hold reasonable and reasoned debates, and the vast majority of the witnesses who were called to appear were chosen by the Conservative government. We can all agree, therefore, that this process was neither very serious nor objective.

Obviously, the committee review was simply an attempt by the government to create an appearance of transparency and to silence the opposition, and nothing more. However, when we do exactly what this government is hoping Canadians will not do, and analyze Bill C-45 carefully, we can clearly see that a genuine examination of the provisions of this bill and the actual amendments is called for, because too many of these measures may well have disastrous consequences for the environment and our country's economy.

I am thinking, for example, of the changes made to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which will become the Navigation Protection Act. Already, we have a good idea of what this government wants to do with it: forget about the fish, the environment, the flora and fauna, and focus on boats and navigation. That is all that counts. Once it is passed, Bill C-45 will eliminate the idea of protecting waterways from the act, and will no longer automatically require an environmental assessment when infrastructure is constructed on virtually all of the waterways in Canada. Once more, this shows what contempt the Conservatives have for protecting our environment.

If Bill C-45 passes as is, only 3 oceans, 97 lakes and 62 rivers in all of Canada will be protected and over 90% of those are in Conservative ridings. That raises some questions.

We must also remember that the provinces and municipalities will now be forced to protect waterways in their jurisdiction, even though they do not have the resources to do so. Of course, the government did not allocate additional resources—logistical or financial—to help the municipalities and provinces carry out this new task, now that the federal government is downloading its responsibilities.

Such measures could be catastrophic for a riding like mine, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, which has 2,258 lakes, rivers and streams. There is Jacques-Cartier River, which some may recall is currently contaminated with TCE. This government still refuses to acknowledge the crown's responsibility in the matter. There is also Sainte-Anne River, which crosses my riding on the Portneuf side; and Lac Saint-Augustin, one of the most polluted lakes in Canada that now, thanks to this government, will be even less protected than it was to begin with. There is Lac Simon, near Saint-Raymond-de-Portneuf; Rivière Montmorency, a rather large river in the region; Rivière aux Pommes, which goes through Neuville and the riding of Portneuf; and there are many more. I could name 2,258.

All these waterways play a vital role in my region's economy, which depends on industries such as tourism and recreational fishing.

We often hear the Conservatives say they are strong advocates for hunters, for obvious reasons, appalling reasons that I will not bother to repeat here in the House. However, we never hear them speak out on behalf of fishers. Recreational fishers come to my riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier to take advantage of our ZECs, controlled harvesting zones. These people help drive the economy in my region. They come to enjoy the beautiful landscapes and natural resources that Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier is famous for. With this bill, there is nothing left. Developers can build a dam or a bridge anywhere they like, to the detriment of all the industries that depend on these waterways, but too bad. The bill introduced by the Conservatives does not contain any measures to do anything at all, apart from the fact that the provinces and municipalities can seek their own recourse.

How can the government justify its decision to stop protecting lakes and rivers in my region and across Canada to my constituents and to all Canadians? It is absolutely inconceivable.

Bill C-45 poses another major problem. I am talking about the changes to support measures for businesses conducting scientific research and experimental development. Many of my colleagues have already talked about this issue. I am glad they did, because this is a crucial part of the budget that needs to be changed.

So, quite simply, they decide to eliminate these measures and they also get rid of eligible investment costs. What they are really doing is cutting $500 million from this program and increasing taxes for businesses. The Conservatives will never present it to us this way, but this is exactly what they are doing. They are creating an increase for the small and large businesses that drive the economy. This is hardly very consistent with their message that they are champions of the Canadian economy. It is obvious that they are not.

Technology, productivity and innovation are essential elements that allow our businesses to compete on the international marketplace, and to compete with emerging countries, which will be setting up good R&D programs for their businesses.

Our businesses will simply leave and it is the manufacturing sector, which is still very significant in the Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier area, that will be directly affected by this ill-considered decision.

I would like to end quickly by saying that unless the bill is amended to reflect the priorities of Canadians, I will have to oppose it. I am going to take advantage of the fact that I still have some speaking time left to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion.

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-45, in clause 321, be amended by adding after line 13 on page 291, the following:

(2.1) as the addition of the navigable waters listed is deemed to be in the public interest, the governor in council may make regulations adding these to the schedule, as soon as practicable after the day this act is assented to, by indicating, with regard to lakes, their approximate location by latitude and longitude and, with regard to rivers, their approximate upstream and downstream points, with the description of the water body and, in the event that more than one water body bears the same name as listed hereinafter, it selects the one to be added to the schedule:

The list includes Raymond Lake, Salt Lake, Reindeer Lake, St. Augustin Lake, Creek Lake, Rat Lake, Kasba Lake, Aurora Lake, Anderson River, Tadek Lake, Morell Lake, Larocque Lake, Campbell Lake, Newland Lake and Thomas Lake.