Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures

This bill was last introduced in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in September 2013.

Sponsor

Jim Flaherty  Conservative

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.

Summary

This is from the published bill.

Part 1 of this enactment implements certain income tax measures and related measures proposed in the March 29, 2012 budget. Most notably, it
(a) expands the list of eligible expenses under the Medical Expense Tax Credit to include blood coagulation monitors and their disposable peripherals;
(b) introduces a temporary measure to allow certain family members to open a Registered Disability Savings Plan for an adult individual who might not be able to enter into a contract;
(c) extends, for one year, the temporary Mineral Exploration Tax Credit for flow-through share investors;
(d) allows corporations to make split and late eligible dividend designations;
(e) makes the salary of the Governor General taxable and adjusts that salary;
(f) allows a designated partner of a partnership to provide a waiver on behalf of all partners to extend the time limit for issuing a determination in respect of the partnership;
(g) amends the penalty applicable to promoters of charitable donation tax shelters who file false registration information or who fail to register a tax shelter prior to selling interests in the tax shelter;
(h) introduces a new penalty applicable to tax shelter promoters who fail to respond to a demand to file an information return or who file an information return that contains false or misleading sales information;
(i) limits the period for which a tax shelter identification number is valid to one calendar year;
(j) modifies the rules for registering certain foreign charitable organizations as qualified donees;
(k) amends the rules for determining the extent to which a charity has engaged in political activities; and
(l) provides the Minister of National Revenue with the authority to suspend the privileges, with respect to issuing tax receipts, of a registered charity or a registered Canadian amateur athletic association if the charity or association fails to report information that is required to be filed annually in an information return or devotes resources to political activities in excess of the limits set out in the Income Tax Act.
Part 1 also implements other selected income tax measures and related measures. Most notably, it
(a) amends the Income Tax Act consequential on the implementation of the Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, including the extension of the tax deferral allowed to farmers in a designated area who produce listed grains and receive deferred cash purchase tickets to all Canadian farmers who produce listed grains and receive deferred cash purchase tickets;
(b) provides authority for the Canada Revenue Agency to issue via online notice or regular mail demands to file a return; and
(c) introduces a requirement for commercial tax preparers to file income tax returns electronically.
Part 2 amends the Excise Tax Act to implement certain excise tax and goods and services tax/harmonized sales tax (GST/HST) measures proposed in the March 29, 2012 Budget. It expands the list of GST/HST zero-rated medical and assistive devices as well as the list of GST/HST zero-rated non-prescription drugs that are used to treat life-threatening diseases. It also exempts certain pharmacists’ professional services from the GST/HST, other than prescription drug dispensing services that are already zero-rated. It further allows certain literacy organizations to claim a rebate of the GST and the federal component of the HST paid on the acquisition of books to be given away for free by those organizations. It also implements legislative requirements relating to the Government of British Columbia’s decision to exit the harmonized sales tax framework. Additional amendments to that Act and related regulations in respect of foreign-based rental vehicles temporarily imported by Canadian residents provide, in certain circumstances, relief from the GST/HST, the Green Levy on fuel-inefficient vehicles and the automobile air conditioner tax. This Part further amends that Act to ensure that changes to the standardized fuel consumption test method used for the EnerGuide, as announced on February 17, 2012 by the Minister of Natural Resources, do not affect the application of the Green Levy.
Finally, Part 2 amends the Air Travellers Security Charge Act, the Excise Act, 2001 and the Excise Tax Act to provide authority for the Canada Revenue Agency to issue via online notice or regular mail demands to file a return.
Part 3 contains certain measures related to responsible resource development.
Division 1 of Part 3 enacts the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, which establishes a new federal environmental assessment regime. Assessments are conducted in relation to projects, designated by regulations or by the Minister of the Environment, to determine whether they are likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects that fall within the legislative authority of Parliament, or that are directly linked or necessarily incidental to a federal authority’s exercise of a power or performance of a duty or function that is required for the carrying out of the project.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the National Energy Board or a review panel established by the Minister are to conduct assessments within applicable time limits. At the end of an assessment, a decision statement is to be issued to the project proponent who is required to comply with the conditions set out in it.
The enactment provides for cooperation between the federal government and other jurisdictions by enabling the delegation of an environmental assessment, the substitution of the process of another jurisdiction for an environmental assessment under the Act and the exclusion of a project from the application of the Act when there is an equivalent assessment by another jurisdiction. The enactment requires that there be opportunities for public participation during an environmental assessment, that participant funding programs and a public registry be established, and that there be follow-up programs in relation to all environmental assessments. It also provides for powers of inspection and fines.
Finally, the enactment specifies that federal authorities are not to take certain measures regarding the carrying out of projects on federal lands or outside Canada unless they determine that those projects are not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.
This Division also makes related amendments to the Environmental Violations Administrative Monetary Penalties Act and consequential amendments to other Acts, and repeals the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
Division 2 of Part 3 amends the National Energy Board Act to allow the Governor in Council to make the decision about the issuance of certificates for major pipelines. It amends the Act to establish time limits for regulatory reviews under the Act and to enhance the powers of the National Energy Board Chairperson and the Minister responsible for the Act to ensure that those reviews are conducted in a timely manner. It also amends the Act to permit the National Energy Board to exercise federal jurisdiction over navigation in respect of pipelines and power lines that cross navigable waters and it establishes an administrative monetary penalty system.
Division 3 of Part 3 amends the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act to authorize the National Energy Board to exercise federal jurisdiction over navigation in respect of pipelines and power lines that cross navigable waters.
Division 4 of Part 3 amends the Nuclear Safety and Control Act to extend the maximum allowable term of temporary members of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission from six months to three years. It is also amended to allow for a licence to be transferred with the consent of that Commission and it puts in place an administrative monetary penalty system.
Division 5 of Part 3 amends the Fisheries Act to focus that Act on the protection of fish that support commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fisheries and to more effectively manage those activities that pose the greatest threats to these fisheries. The amendments provide additional clarity for the authorization of serious harm to fish and of deposits of deleterious substances. The amendments allow the Minister to enter into agreements with provinces and with other bodies, provide for the control and management of aquatic invasive species, clarify and expand the powers of inspectors, and permit the Governor in Council to designate another Minister as the Minister responsible for the administration and enforcement of subsections 36(3) to (6) of the Fisheries Act for the purposes of, and in relation to, subject matters set out by order.
Division 6 of Part 3 amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 to provide the Minister of the Environment with the authority to renew disposal at sea permits in prescribed circumstances. It is also amended to change the publication requirements for disposal at sea permits and to provide authority to make regulations respecting time limits for their issuance and renewal.
Division 7 of Part 3 amends the Species at Risk Act to allow for the issuance of authorizations with a longer term, to clarify the authority to renew the authorizations and to make compliance with conditions of permits enforceable. The Act is also amended to provide authority to make regulations respecting time limits for the issuance and renewal of permits under the Act. Furthermore, section 77 is amended to ensure that the National Energy Board will be able to issue a certificate when required to do so by the Governor in Council under subsection 54(1) of the National Energy Board Act.
Part 4 enacts and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 4 amends a number of Acts to eliminate the requirement for the Auditor General of Canada to undertake annual financial audits of certain entities and to assess the performance reports of two agencies. This Division also eliminates other related obligations.
Division 2 of Part 4 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act and the Cooperative Credit Associations Act to prohibit the issuance of life annuity-like products.
Division 3 of Part 4 provides that PPP Canada Inc. is an agent of Her Majesty for purposes limited to its mandated activities at the federal level, including the provision of advice to federal departments and Crown corporations on public-private partnership projects.
Division 4 of Part 4 amends the Northwest Territories Act, the Nunavut Act and the Yukon Act to provide the authority for the Governor in Council to set, on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, the maximum amount of territorial borrowings and to make regulations in relation to those maximum amounts, including what constitutes borrowing, the relevant entities and the valuation of the borrowings.
Division 5 of Part 4 amends the Financial Administration Act to modify, for parent Crown corporations, the period to which their quarterly financial reports relate, so that it is aligned with their financial year, and to include in the place of certain annual tabling requirements related to the business and activities of parent Crown corporations a requirement to make public consolidated quarterly reports on their business and activities. It also amends the Alternative Fuels Act and the Public Service Employment Act to eliminate certain reporting requirements.
Division 6 of Part 4 amends the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act to establish the Social Security Tribunal and to add provisions authorizing the electronic administration or enforcement of programs, legislation, activities or policies. It also amends the Canada Pension Plan, the Old Age Security Act and the Employment Insurance Act so that appeals from decisions made under those Acts will be heard by the Social Security Tribunal. Finally, it provides for transitional provisions and makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 7 of Part 4 amends the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act to add provisions relating to the protection of personal information obtained in the course of administering or enforcing the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act and repeals provisions in the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act that are substantially the same as those that are added to the Human Resources and Skills Development Act.
Division 8 of Part 4 amends the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act to add provisions relating to the social insurance registers and Social Insurance Numbers. It also amends the Canada Pension Plan in relation to Social Insurance Numbers and the Employment Insurance Act to repeal certain provisions relating to the social insurance registers and Social Insurance Numbers and to maintain the power to charge the costs of those registers to the Employment Insurance Operating Account.
Division 9 of Part 4 amends the Parks Canada Agency Act to provide that the Agency may enter into agreements with other ministers or bodies to assist in the administration and enforcement of legislation in places outside national parks, national historic sites, national marine conservation areas and other protected heritage areas if considerations of geography make it impractical for the other minister or body to administer and enforce that legislation in those places. It also amends that Act to provide that the Chief Executive Officer is to report to the Minister of the Environment under section 31 of that Act every five years. It amends that Act to remove the requirements for annual corporate plans, annual reports and annual audits, and amends that Act, the Canada National Parks Act and the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act to provide that that Minister is to review management plans for national parks, national historic sites, national marine conservation areas and other protected heritage areas at least every 10 years and is to have any amendments to a plan tabled in Parliament.
Division 10 of Part 4 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act in order to allow public sector investment pools that satisfy certain criteria, including pursuing commercial objectives, to directly invest in a Canadian financial institution, subject to approval by the Minister of Finance.
Division 11 of Part 4 amends the National Housing Act, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and the Supporting Vulnerable Seniors and Strengthening Canada’s Economy Act to enhance the governance and oversight framework of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
This Division also amends the National Housing Act to establish a registry for institutions that issue covered bonds and for covered bond programs and to provide for the protection of covered bond contracts and covered bond collateral in the event of an issuer’s bankruptcy or insolvency. It also makes amendments to the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act, the Insurance Companies Act and the Cooperative Credit Associations Act to prohibit institutions from issuing covered bonds except within the framework established under the National Housing Act. Finally, it includes a coordinating amendment to the Supporting Vulnerable Seniors and Strengthening Canada’s Economy Act.
Division 12 of Part 4 implements the Framework Agreement on Integrated Cross-Border Maritime Law Enforcement Operations between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America signed on May 26, 2009.
Division 13 of Part 4 amends the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act to reflect an increase in Canada’s quota subscription, as related to the ratification of the 2010 Quota and Governance reform resolution of the Board of Governors of the International Monetary Fund, and to align the timing of the annual report under that Act to correspond to that of the annual report under the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act.
Division 14 of Part 4 amends the Canada Health Act so that members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are included in the definition of “insured person”.
Division 15 of Part 4 amends the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act to
(a) remove the office of the Inspector General;
(b) require the Security Intelligence Review Committee to submit to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness a certificate on the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service’s annual report; and
(c) increase the information on the Service’s activities to be provided by that Committee to that Minister.
Division 16 of Part 4 amends the Currency Act to clarify certain provisions that relate to the calling in and the redemption of coins.
Division 17 of Part 4 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act in order to implement the total transfer protection for the 2012-2013 fiscal year and to give effect to certain elements of major transfer renewal that were announced by the Minister of Finance on December 19, 2011. It also makes certain administrative amendments to that Act and to the Canada Health Act.
Division 18 of Part 4 amends the Fisheries Act to authorize the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to allocate fish for the purpose of financing scientific and fisheries management activities in the context of joint project agreements.
Division 19 of Part 4 amends the Food and Drugs Act to give the Minister of Health the power to establish a list that sets out prescription drugs or classes of prescription drugs and to provide that the list may be incorporated by reference. It also gives the Minister the power to issue marketing authorizations that exempt a food, or an advertisement with respect to a food, from certain provisions of the Act. The division also provides that a regulation with respect to a food and a marketing authorization may incorporate by reference any document. It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 20 of Part 4 amends the Government Employees Compensation Act to allow prescribed entities to be subrogated to the rights of employees to make claims against third parties.
Division 21 of Part 4 amends the International Development Research Centre Act to reduce the maximum number of governors of the Centre to 14, and to consequently change other rules about the number of governors.
Division 22 of Part 4 amends Part I of the Canada Labour Code to require the parties to a collective agreement to file a copy of it with the Minister of Labour, subject to the regulations, as a condition for it to come into force. It amends Part III of that Act to require employers that provide benefits to their employees under long-term disability plans to insure those plans, subject to certain exceptions. The Division also amends that Part to create an offence and to increase maximum fines for offences under that Part.
Division 23 of Part 4 repeals the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act.
Division 24 of Part 4 amends the Old Age Security Act to provide the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development with the authority to waive the requirement for an application for Old Age Security benefits for many eligible seniors, to gradually increase the age of eligibility for the Old Age Security Pension, the Guaranteed Income Supplement, the Allowance and the Allowance for the Survivor and to allow individuals to voluntarily defer their Old Age Security Pension up to five years past the age of eligibility, in exchange for a higher, actuarially adjusted, pension.
Division 25 of Part 4 dissolves the Public Appointments Commission and its secretariat.
Division 26 of Part 4 amends the Seeds Act to give the President of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency the power to issue licences to persons authorizing them to perform activities related to controlling or assuring the quality of seeds or seed crops.
Division 27 of Part 4 amends the Statutory Instruments Act to remove the distribution requirements for the Canada Gazette.
Division 28 of Part 4 amends the Investment Canada Act in order to authorize the Minister of Industry to communicate or disclose certain information relating to investments and to accept security in order to promote compliance with undertakings.
Division 29 of Part 4 amends the Customs Act to allow the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to designate a portion of a roadway or other access way that leads to a customs office and that is used by persons arriving in Canada and by persons travelling within Canada as a mixed-traffic corridor. All persons who are travelling in a mixed-traffic corridor must present themselves to a border services officer and state whether they are arriving from a location outside or within Canada.
Division 30 of Part 4 gives retroactive effect to subsections 39(2) and (3) of the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985.
Division 31 of Part 4 amends the Railway Safety Act to limit the apportionment of costs to a road authority when a grant has been made under section 12 of that Act.
Division 32 of Part 4 amends the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act to replace the two Vice-chairperson positions with two permanent member positions.
Division 33 of Part 4 repeals the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development Act and authorizes the closing out of the affairs of the Centre established by that Act.
Division 34 of Part 4 amends the Health of Animals Act to allow the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to declare certain areas to be control zones in respect of a disease or toxic substance. The enactment also grants the Minister certain powers, including the power to make regulations prohibiting the movement of persons, animals or things in the control zones for the purpose of eliminating a disease or toxic substance or controlling its spread and the power to impose conditions on the movement of animals or things in those zones.
Division 35 of Part 4 amends the Canada School of Public Service Act to abolish the Board of Governors of the Canada School of Public Service and to place certain responsibilities on the Minister designated for the purposes of the Act and on the President of the School.
Division 36 of Part 4 amends the Bank Act by adding a preamble to it.
Division 37 of Part 4 amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to eliminate the requirement of a hearing for certain reviews.
Division 38 of Part 4 amends the Coasting Trade Act to add seismic activities to the list of exceptions to the prohibition against foreign ships and non-duty paid ships engaging in the coasting trade.
Division 39 of Part 4 amends the Status of the Artist Act to dissolve the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal and transfer its powers and duties to the Canada Industrial Relations Board.
Division 40 of Part 4 amends the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy Act to give the Round Table the power to sell or otherwise dispose of its assets and satisfy its debts and liabilities and to give the Minister of the Environment the power to direct the Round Table in respect of the exercise of some of its powers. The Division provides for the repeal of the Act and makes consequential amendments to other acts.
Division 41 of Part 4 amends the Telecommunications Act to change the rules relating to foreign ownership of Canadian carriers eligible to operate as telecommunications common carriers and to permit the recovery of costs associated with the administration and enforcement of the national do not call list.
Division 42 of Part 4 amends the Employment Equity Act to remove the requirements that are specific to the Federal Contractors Program for Employment Equity.
Division 43 of Part 4 amends the Employment Insurance Act to permit a person’s benefits to be determined by reference to their highest earnings in a given number of weeks, to permit regulations to be made respecting what constitutes suitable employment, to remove the requirement that a consent to deduction be in writing, to provide a limitation period within which certain repayments of overpayments need to be deducted and paid and to clarify the provisions respecting the refund of premiums to self-employed persons. It also amends that Act to modify the Employment Insurance premium rate-setting mechanism, including requiring that the rate be set on a seven-year break-even basis once the Employment Insurance Operating Account returns to balance. The Division makes consequential amendments to the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board Act.
Division 44 of Part 4 amends the Customs Tariff to make certain imported fuels duty-free and to increase the travellers’ exemption thresholds.
Division 45 of Part 4 amends the Canada Marine Act to require provisions of a port authority’s letters patent relating to limits on the authority’s power to borrow money to be recommended by the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Finance before they are approved by the Governor in Council.
Division 46 of Part 4 amends the First Nations Land Management Act to implement changes made to the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management, including changes relating to the description of land that is to be subject to a land code, and to provide for the coming into force of land codes and the development by First Nations of environmental protection regimes.
Division 47 of Part 4 amends the Canada Travelling Exhibitions Indemnification Act to increase the maximum indemnity in respect of individual travelling exhibitions, as well as the maximum indemnity in respect of all travelling exhibitions.
Division 48 of Part 4 amends the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Act to provide that the chief executive officer of the Authority is appointed by the Governor in Council and that an employee may not replace the chief executive officer for more than 90 days without the Governor in Council’s approval.
Division 49 of Part 4 amends the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act to repeal provisions related to the First Nations Statistical Institute and amends that Act and other Acts to remove any reference to that Institute. It authorizes the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to close out the Institute’s affairs.
Division 50 of Part 4 amends the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act to provide for the payment or reimbursement of fees for career transition services for veterans or their survivors.
Division 51 of Part 4 amends the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act to add powers, duties and functions that are substantially the same as those conferred by the Department of Social Development Act. It repeals the Department of Social Development Act and, in doing so, eliminates the National Council of Welfare.
Division 52 of Part 4 amends the Wage Earner Protection Program Act in order to correct the English version of the definition “eligible wages”.
Division 53 of Part 4 repeals the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act.
Division 54 of Part 4 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 2008 to provide for the termination of certain applications for permanent residence that were made before February 27, 2008. This Division also amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to, among other things, authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to give instructions establishing and governing classes of permanent residents as part of the economic class and to provide that the User Fees Act does not apply in respect of fees set by those instructions. Furthermore, this Division amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to allow for the retrospective application of certain regulations and certain instructions given by the Minister, if those regulations and instructions so provide, and to authorize regulations to be made respecting requirements imposed on employers in relation to authorizations to work in Canada.
Division 55 of Part 4 enacts the Shared Services Canada Act to establish Shared Services Canada to provide certain administrative services specified by the Governor in Council. The Act provides for the Governor in Council to designate a minister to preside over Shared Services Canada.
Division 56 of Part 4 amends the Assisted Human Reproduction Act to respond to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Reference re Assisted Human Reproduction Act that was rendered in 2010, including by repealing the provisions that were found to be unconstitutional and abolishing the Assisted Human Reproduction Agency of Canada.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Votes

June 18, 2012 Passed That the Bill be now read a third time and do pass.
June 18, 2012 Failed That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word "That" and substituting the following: “this House decline to give third reading to Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, because this House: a) does not know the full implications of the budget cuts given that the government has kept the details of the $5.2 billion in spending cuts from the Parliamentary Budget Officer whose lawyer, Joseph Magnet, says the government is violating the Federal Accountability Act and should turn the information over to the Parliamentary Budget Officer; b) is concerned with the impact of the changes in the Bill on Canadian society, such as: i) making it more difficult for Canadians to access Employment Insurance (EI) when they need it and forcing them to accept jobs at 70% of what they previously earned or lose their EI; ii) raising the age of eligibility for Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement from 65 to 67 years and thus driving thousands of Canadians into poverty while downloading spending to the provinces; iii) cutting back the federal health transfers to the provinces from 2017 on, which will result in a loss of $31 billion to the health care system; and iv) gutting the federal environmental assessment regime and weakening fish habitat protection which will adversely affect Canada's environmental sustainability for generations to come; and c) is opposed to the removal of critical oversight powers of the Auditor General over a dozen agencies and the systematic concentration of powers in the hands of government ministers over agencies such as the National Energy Board, which weakens Canadians' confidence in the work of Parliament, decreases transparency and erodes fundamental democratic institutions by systematically eroding institutional checks and balances to the government's ideologically driven agenda”.
June 13, 2012 Passed That Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, be concurred in at report stage.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting the Schedule.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 753, be amended by replacing lines 8 and 9 on page 424 with the following: “force on September 1, 2012.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 711.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 706.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 700.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 699, be amended by replacing line 16 on page 401 with the following: “2007, is repealed as of April 30, 2015.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 699.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 696, be amended by replacing lines 2 and 3 on page 401 with the following: “on September 15, 2015.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 685.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 684, be amended by replacing lines 6 to 8 on page 396 with the following: “684. This Division comes into force on September 1, 2012.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 661.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 681, be amended by replacing lines 32 to 34 on page 394 with the following: “681. This Division comes into force on January 1, 2016.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 656.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 654.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 620.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 619, be amended by replacing lines 22 and 23 on page 378 with the following: “608(2) and (3) come into force on April 30, 2016.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 606.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 603.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 602.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 595.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 594, be amended by replacing lines 6 and 7 on page 365 with the following: “on April 30, 2016.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 578.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 577, be amended by replacing lines 18 to 20 on page 361 with the following: “577. This Division comes into force on June 1, 2015.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 532.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 531.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 530, be amended by replacing lines 24 and 25 on page 342 with the following: “on January 15, 2016.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 526.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 525, be amended by deleting lines 6 to 10 on page 341.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 525, be amended by replacing lines 6 to 10 on page 341 with the following: “And whereas respect for provincial laws of general application is necessary to ensure the quality of the banking services offered;”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 525, be amended by replacing line 33 on page 340 with the following: “Whereas a strong, efficient and publicly accountable banking sector”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 525.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 522, be amended by replacing line 2 on page 340 with the following: “possible after the end of each fiscal year but”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 516.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 515, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 338 with the following: “September 1, 2013 or, if it is later, on the day on”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 508, be amended (a) by replacing line 1 on page 336 with the following: “( b) humanely dispose of that animal or thing or require” (b) by replacing line 3 on page 336 with the following: “care or control of it to humanely dispose of it if, according to expert opinion, treatment under paragraph ( a) is not feasible or is not able to be carried out quickly enough to be effective in eliminating the disease or toxic substance or preventing its spread.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 506.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 505, be amended by replacing lines 9 and 10 on page 333 with the following: “on January 1, 2016.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 490.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 489, be amended by replacing line 20 on page 329 with the following: “February 1, 2016.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 487.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 486, be amended by replacing line 30 on page 328 with the following: “January 1, 2013.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 484.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 481.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 480, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 326 with the following: “subsection 23(1) and all criteria and factors considered in reaching a decision or sending notice under that subsection, with the exception of all commercially sensitive information;”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 479.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 478, be amended by replacing lines 25 to 27 on page 325 with the following: “478. This Division comes into force on September 15, 2015.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 476.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 475, be amended by replacing lines 18 and 19 on page 324 with the following: “tion 4.1, including their issuance and their”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 474, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 324 with the following: “that he or she considers appropriate for assuring the quality of seeds and seed crops, subject to the conditions set out in subsection (5).”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 473, be amended by replacing lines 12 and 13 on page 323 with the following: “tion 4.2, including their issuance and their”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 473.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 468.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 467, be amended by replacing lines 3 to 5 on page 322 with the following: “464 and 465, come into force on June 15, 2015.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 446.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 445.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 444, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 3 on page 306 with the following: “444. This Division comes into force on April 30, 2016.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 441.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 440, be amended by replacing lines 21 and 22 on page 305 with the following: “force on January 1, 2013.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 427.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 426, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 3 on page 299 with the following: “426. This Division comes into force on May 1, 2013.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 420.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 419, be amended by replacing lines 12 and 13 on page 295 with the following: “force on January 1, 2016.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 416, be amended by replacing line 40 on page 292 with the following: “considers appropriate and must be subject to regulatory approval.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 413, be amended by deleting lines 25 and 26 on page 291.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 412.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 411.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 391.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 378.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 377.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 374, be amended by replacing lines 31 to 33 on page 280 with the following: “374. This Division comes into force on April 30, 2016.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 368, be amended by adding after line 34 on page 274 the following: “(3) Every officer appointed under this section must conduct every operation, wherever it takes place, in a manner respecting the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 368.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 367, be amended by replacing lines 9 and 10 on page 272 with the following: “force on January 1, 2014.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 353.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 325, be amended (a) by replacing line 20 on page 244 with the following: “(2) The Minister shall conduct a comprehensive review of the manage-” (b) by replacing line 22 on page 244 with the following: “at least every 10 years, taking into account any feedback received from the public under subsection (2.1), and shall cause any” (c) by adding after line 24 on page 244 the following: “(2.1) In every year, the Minister shall ( a) publish on the departmental website the management plan for each national historic site or other protected heritage area; and ( b) open the plan to public consultation and feedback, to be taken into account by the Agency in future decisions regarding changes to the management plan.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 324, be amended (a) by replacing lines 13 and 14 on page 244 with the following: “(2) The Minister shall conduct a comprehensive review of the management plan for each park at least every 10 years, taking into account any feedback received from the public under subsection (2.1),” (b) by adding after line 16 on page 244 the following: “(2.1) In every year, the Minister shall ( a) publish on the departmental website the management plan for each national historic site or other protected heritage area; and ( b) open the plan to public consultation and feedback, to be taken into account by the Agency in future decisions regarding changes to the management plan.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 319, be amended (a) by replacing line 39 on page 243 with the following: “(2) The Minister shall conduct a comprehensive review of the manage-” (b) by replacing line 41 on page 243 with the following: “protected heritage area at least every 10 years, taking into account any feedback received from the public under subsection (2.1),” (c) by adding after line 43 on page 243 the following: “(2.1) In every year, the Minister shall ( a) publish on the departmental website the management plan for each national historic site or other protected heritage area; and ( b) open the plan to public consultation and feedback, to be taken into account by the Agency in future decisions regarding changes to the management plan.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 318, be amended by adding after line 36 on page 243 the following: “(2) The report referred to in subsection (1) shall include, for the previous calendar year, all information related to any action or enforcement measure taken in accordance with subsection 6(1) under any Act or regulation set out in Part 3 or Part 4 of the Schedule.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 317.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 315.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 314, be amended by replacing lines 8 and 9 on page 242 with the following: “on May 1, 2013.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 304.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 303, be amended by replacing lines 2 and 3 on page 235 with the following: “on September 1, 2015.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 283.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 281, be amended by replacing line 33 on page 226 with the following: “April 1, 2016.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 223.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 219.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 218.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 217, be amended by replacing lines 21 to 23 on page 194 with the following: “217. This Division comes into force on April 1, 2015.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 217.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 214.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 209.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 175, be amended by replacing line 17 on page 185 with the following: “financial statements of the Council, and the Council shall make the report available for public scrutiny at the offices of the Council.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 170.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 163, be amended by replacing line 29 on page 181 with the following: “(6.1) Subject to subsection 73(9), the agreement or permit must set out”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 163.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 161, be amended by deleting lines 32 to 39 on page 180.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 160, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 180 with the following: “published in the Environmental Registry and in the Canada Gazette; or”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 159, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 179 with the following: “mental Registry as well as in the Canada Gazette.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 157, be amended by replacing lines 37 and 38 on page 178 with the following: “and, subject to the regulations, after consulting relevant peer-reviewed science, considering public concerns and taking all appropriate measures to ensure that no ecosystem will be significantly adversely affected, renew it no more than once. (1.1) Before issuing a permit referred to under subsection (1), the Minister shall ensure that the issuance of the permit will not have any adverse effects on critical habitat as it is defined in subsection 2(1) of the Species at Risk Act. ”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 157.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 156, be amended by replacing lines 29 and 30 on page 178 with the following: “and 153 come into force on July 1, 2015.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 154, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 177 with the following: “Act may not be commenced later than twenty-five years”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 150, be amended by replacing lines 25 to 29 on page 176 with the following: “recommendation of the Minister following consultation with the public and experts or, if they are made for the purposes of and in relation to the subject matters set out in an order made under section 43.2, on the recommendation of the minister designated under that section following consultation with the public and experts.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 149, be amended by replacing line 40 on page 174 with the following: “( i.01) excluding certain fisheries, on the basis of public consultation and expert opinion, from the defini-”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 148, be amended by replacing lines 15 to 21 on page 174 with the following: “42.1 (1) The Minister shall, as soon as possible after the end of each fiscal year, prepare and cause to be laid before each house of Parliament a report on the administration and enforcement of the provisions of this Act relating to fish habitat protection and pollution prevention for that year, including for those fisheries of particular commercial or recreational value and any fisheries of cultural or economic value for Aboriginal communities.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 145, be amended by replacing line 8 on page 164 with the following: “enforcement of this Act, provided that, with regard to the designation of any analyst, the analyst has been independently recognized as qualified to be so designated.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 144, be amended by replacing lines 46 and 47 on page 161 with the following: “results or is likely to result in alteration, disruption or serious harm to any fish or fish habitat, including those that are part of a commercial, recreational”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 143, be amended by replacing line 17 on page 159 with the following: “made by the Governor in Council under subsection (5) applicable to that”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 142, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 158 with the following: “(2) If conducted in accordance with expert advice that is based on an independent analysis so as to ensure the absolute minimum of destruction or disruption of fish populations and fish habitat, a person may carry on a work, under-”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by adding after line 32 on page 157 the following new clause: “139.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 32: 32.1 Every owner or occupier of a water intake, ditch, channel or canal referred to in subsection 30(1) who refuses or neglects to provide and maintain a fish guard, screen, covering or netting in accordance with subsections 30(1) to (3), permits the removal of a fish guard, screen, covering or netting in contravention of subsection 30(3) or refuses or neglects to close a sluice or gate in accordance with subsection 30(4) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable, for a first offence, to a fine not exceeding two hundred thousand dollars and, for any subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding two hundred thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 139, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 157 with the following: “32. (1) No person shall kill or harm fish by any”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 136, be amended by replacing line 39 on page 154 to line 1 on page 155 with the following: “(2) If, on the basis of expert opinion, the Minister considers it necessary to ensure the free passage of fish or to prevent harm to fish, the owner or person who has the charge, management or control of any water intake, ditch, channel or canal in Canada constructed or adapted for conducting water from any Canadian fisheries waters for irrigating, manufacturing, power generation, domestic or other purposes shall, on the Minister’s request, within the”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 135, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 154 with the following: “commercial, recrea-”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 134, be amended by replacing line 17 on page 151 with the following: “programs and, if the Minister has determined, on the basis of the features and scope of the programs, that the programs are equivalent in their capabilities to meet and ensure compliance with the provisions of this Act, otherwise harmonizing those”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 133, be amended by replacing line 8 on page 150 with the following: “thing impeding the free”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 132.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 131, be amended by replacing lines 35 and 36 on page 149 with the following: “force on August 1, 2015.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 124, be amended by replacing line 24 on page 141 with the following: “replace a licence after consulting the public, expert opinion and peer-reviewed scientific evidence, or decide whether it is in the public interest to authorize its transfer, on”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 123, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 141 with the following: “seven months.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 122.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 121, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 141 with the following: “June 1, 2015.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 116.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 115, be amended by replacing lines 33 and 34 on page 138 with the following: “and 99 to 114 come into force on September 1, 2015.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 97, be amended by replacing lines 40 and 41 on page 125 with the following: “120.5 The Board may issue a ”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 94, be amended by replacing line 36 on page 124 with the following: “recommendation, the Board shall, after all required consultation with members of the public and with First Nations, seek to avoid”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 93, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 124 with the following: “oil or gas, the Board shall, after all required consultation with members of the public and with First Nations and taking into account all considerations that appear to it to be relevant, satisfy itself that the”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 90, be amended by replacing line 12 on page 118 with the following: “was constructed in accordance with the Navigable Waters Protection Act and that passes in, on, over, under, through or”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 89, be amended by replacing line 16 on page 117 with the following: “certificate under section 52 or 53 authorizing the”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 88, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 117 with the following: “under which section 58.29 does not apply or leave from the Board under”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 87, be amended by replacing line 44 on page 114 with the following: “a work to which that Act applies, unless it passes in, on, over, under, through or across a navigable water.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 86, be amended by replacing line 32 on page 112 with the following: “V, except sections 74, 76 to 78, 108, 110 to 111.3,”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 85, be amended by replacing lines 2 to 4 on page 111 with the following: “the Board shall have regard to all representations referred to in section 55.2.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 84, be amended by replacing line 36 on page 109 with the following: “the time limit specified by the Chairperson pursuant to a motion and vote among Board members,”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 83, be amended by replacing lines 25 to 27 on page 105 with the following: “shall consider the objections of any interested person or group that, in their opinion, appear to be directly or indirectly related to the pipeline, and may have regard to the”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 82, be amended by replacing lines 39 and 40 on page 104 with the following: “(4) Subsections 121(3) to(5) apply to”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 81, be amended by replacing line 14 on page 104 with the following: “(2) A public hearing may be held in respect of any other matter that the Board considers advisable, however a public hearing need not be held where”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 79, be amended by replacing line 35 on page 103 with the following: “(2) Except in any instances where, based on what the Board considers necessary or desirable in the public interest, the Board considers it is advisable to do so, subsection (1) does not apply in respect”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 78, be amended by replacing line 30 on page 103 with the following: “(1.1) Except in any instances where, based on what the Board considers necessary or desirable in the public interest, the Board considers it is advisable to do so, subsection (1) does not apply in respect”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 76, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 101 with the following: “15. (1) The Chairperson or the Board may authorize one”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 75, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 101 with the following: “14. (1) The Chairperson may propose a motion to authorize one”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 72, be amended by replacing lines 34 to 40 on page 100 with the following: “(2.1) For greater certainty, if the number of members authorized to deal with an application as a result of any measure taken by the Chairperson under subsection 6(2.2) is less than three, the Board shall elect a third member to satisfy the quorum requirements established under subsection (2).”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 71, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 99 with the following: “an application, the Chairperson may propose a motion to put in place a”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 68.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 67, be amended by replacing lines 20 and 21 on page 98 with the following: “force on April 30, 2016.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing lines 25 to 29 on page 35 with the following: “with respect to a project, that a group or individual is an interested party if, in its opinion, the group or individual, including those who use adjacent land for recreational, cultural or hunting purposes, is directly — or could potentially be indirectly — affected by the carrying out of the project, or if, in its opinion, the group or individual has relevant information or expertise:”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by adding after line 8 on page 31 the following: “Whereas the Government of Canada seeks to achieve sustainable development by conserving and enhancing environmental quality and by encouraging and promoting economic development that conserves and enhances environmental quality; Whereas environmental assessment provides an effective means of integrating environmental factors into planning and decision-making processes in a manner that promotes sustainable development; Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to exercising leadership, within Canada and internationally, in anticipating and preventing the degradation of environmental quality and, at the same time, in ensuring that economic development is compatible with the high value Canadians place on environmental quality; Whereas the Government of Canada seeks to avoid duplication or unnecessary delays; And whereas the Government of Canada is committed to facilitating public participation in the environmental assessment of projects to be carried out by or with the approval or assistance of the Government of Canada and to providing access to the information on which those environmental assessments are based;”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 52.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 19.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 14 with the following: “on January 1, 2013 a salary of $137,000.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 16.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 4.
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 8 with the following: “interest, being any activity that contributes to the social or cultural lives of Canadians or that contributes to Canada's economic or ecological well-being.”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 5 on page 7 with the following: ““political activity” means the making of a gift by a donor to a qualified donee for the purpose of allowing the donor to maintain a level of funding of political activities that is less than 10% of its income for a taxation year by delegating the carrying out of political activities to the qualified donee;”
June 13, 2012 Failed That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 1.
June 12, 2012 Passed That, in relation to Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, not more than 10 further hours shall be allotted to the consideration at report stage of the Bill and 8 hours shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill; and That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the 10 hours for the consideration at report stage and at the expiry of the 8 hours for the consideration at the third reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.
May 14, 2012 Passed That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.
May 14, 2012 Failed That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “this House decline to give second reading to Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, because it: ( a) weakens Canadians’ confidence in the work of Parliament, decreases transparency and erodes fundamental democratic institutions by systematically over-concentrating power in the hands of government ministers; ( b) shields the government from criticism on extremely controversial non-budgetary issues by bundling them into one enormous piece of legislation masquerading as a budgetary bill; ( c) undermines the critical role played by such trusted oversight bodies as the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, the CSIS Inspector General and the National Energy Board, amongst many others, thereby silencing institutional checks and balances to the government’s ideological agenda; ( d) raises the age of eligibility for Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement from 65 to 67 years in a reckless effort to balance the government’s misguided spending on prisons, incompetent military procurement and inappropriate Ministerial expenses; ( e) includes provisions to gut the federal environmental assessment regime and to overhaul fish habitat protection that will adversely affect fragile ecosystems and Canada’s environmental sustainability for generations to come; ( f) calls into question Canada’s food inspection and public health regime by removing critical oversight powers of the Auditor General in relation to the Canada Food Inspection Agency all while providing an avenue and paving the way for opportunities to privatize a number of essential inspection functions; and ( g) does nothing to provide a solution for the growing number of Canadians looking for employment in Canada’s challenging job market and instead fuels further job loss, which according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer will amount to a total loss of 43,000 jobs in 2014.”.
May 3, 2012 Passed That, in relation to Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, not more than six further sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the sixth day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

June 13th, 2012 / 7:35 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Royal Galipeau Conservative Ottawa—Orléans, ON

Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me.

It is a great pleasure for me to discuss Bill C-38 this evening.

The United States and especially Europe are in grave trouble. Canada's economy has emerged from the global recession much better than other industrialized countries, especially those in Europe.

Because this government has done its homework since its first victory in 2006, the 2012 election was the first in Canadian history that a government won following a recession. I had voted against holding that unnecessary election.

Those on the other side who had voted for the dissolution of the 40th Parliament remind me of turkeys who vote for an early Christmas. Through this election, voters gave us a clear mandate to keep up the good work with the economy and balance the books as quickly as possible. Canadians want jobs to be created and that is what they expect from us.

Locally, Ottawa roughly had 542,200 people employed at the beginning of the month of May 2012. Between April and May 2012, Ottawa witnessed a drop in unemployed by 9,000, which led to a decrease in unemployment by a tenth of a percent. Since October 2010, the unemployment rate has dropped by an eighth of a percent.

In accordance with the information presented in the 2012 economic action plan, this government has established that it would be near a balanced budget in 2014 and that a balanced would be obtained in 2015.

It is crucial that we return to a balanced budget. It is only under these circumstances that our government can continue to make important investments.

In Ottawa, there is no lack of projects waiting to happen. The cities of Ottawa and Gatineau are calling for a new interprovincial bridge at Kettle Island. The National Capital Commission is currently holding public consultations on this matter. In fact, it held a public hearing yesterday at the Shenkman Arts Centre next door to my constituency office.

On the topic of transportation networks, another project will remain at the centre of discussion for the city over the next few years. July 13, 2011, the City of Ottawa adopted a motion presented by councillor Stephen Blais, to extend the route of the light rail transit towards the east as quickly as possible.

The 2008 transportation master plan does not call for extending the light rail line from Blair station to Trim Road before 2031.

By bringing this motion forward before the master plan is reviewed, the city council is ensuring that the feasibility study for the Orleans LRT extension can be completed as soon as possible so that residents from the east end can have access to light rail sooner. For that, Councillor Blais and his partners, Councillor Rainer Bloess, Councillor Bob Monette and Councillor Tim Tierney deserve kudos.

And Ottawa–Orléans is the North American leader in respect to the use of public transit.

If we want major infrastructure projects like these to become reality, both in Ottawa and elsewhere in Canada, we need to balance the budget. It is always easier to make investments with a healthy financial position than with a deficit.

In 2012, federal support for the provinces and territories reached a record high and will continue to rise.

In 2012-13, Ontario will receive record support through major federal transfers, most of which is earmarked for health and will provide this province with $19.2 billion.

This investment represents a 77% increase in transfers relative to those made by the previous government. Even if the government, under the mandate of its Canadian electorate, tightens its belt, its methodology differs from the previous government, now a third party in the House of Commons.

They had slashed the transfers to the provinces. They had slashed the funds reserved for health and education. They had forced the provinces to lay off nurses and teachers.

In addition to drastically cutting funding to the public sector, the previous government balanced the budget on the backs of the provinces, while this government continues to increase its share of federal transfers, therefore towards health care, and proposes a 2% decrease in budget spending in the public service. The previous government had cut tens of thousands of jobs from the public service in one fell swoop.

Our approach is incremental. This means that, despite what doomsayers predicted, job losses have been far less significant than certain predictions would have had us believe, the worst of which predicted that 60,000 public servants would be shown the door.

We are now talking about cutting 4,800 jobs in total in the national capital region in the next three years, and that is after increasing the number of public servants by 13,000 over the past five years.

Despite everything, this decision was not made lightly. We have one of the most competent public services in the world.

But, when we look elsewhere, things do not look so bad here. We are far from the situation in Greece, where 15,000 public-sector employees were cut, and an additional 30,000 people were temporarily laid off.

We are far from the situation in Italy, which almost went bankrupt before an interim government resolved to take the measures deemed necessary. Since then, Italy has increased its sales, housing and property taxes. These are things we are not doing.

Since 2006, the Canadian government has kept its word regarding taxation. Canadian taxpayers today are paying less tax than at any point in the last 30 years.

The budget we are now debating today strongly supports world-class innovation and research. This government believes in innovation. On March 27, I was pleased to announce that nearly $1 million would be allocated for an IT professional mentoring program to encourage primary and secondary school students in Ottawa to take an interest in science and innovation.

I see this measure as a great opportunity for the National Research Council of Canada, located at the doorstep of Ottawa–Orléans.

The good and wise people of Ottawa—Orléans know of my unfailing support for scientific research and development. In this budget the Minister of Finance has taken action on the Jenkins report and is investing $1.1 billion in direct support for R and D and $500 million in venture capital.

Small and medium-sized enterprises are at the core of the Canadian economy and that of Ottawa–Orléans.

Constituents, who on three occasions have given me the honour to serve them in the House, can count on dynamic small businesses. The Orléans Chamber of Commerce alone counts on the support of over 200 members.

Before the budget was drafted, businessmen and businesswomen in Orléans took part in a brainstorming session that I chaired, along with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, my friend from Ottawa West—Nepean.

The owners of two SMEs in Ottawa–Orléans, Access Print Imaging and Sure Print & Graphics, shared their ideas, as did Joanne Lefebvre, chair of the Regroupement des gens d’affaires de la capitale nationale, and Jo-Anne Bazinet, chair of the Orléans Business Club.

I am sure that they will be pleased, as will other dynamic members of the Orléans business community, with the important measures we have put forward in Bill C-38. Our government recognizes the vital role that small businesses play in the economy and job creation.

The 2012 economic action plan provides several key measures to support them in their growth.

The hiring credit for small business, a credit of up to $1,000, has been extended. This measure will benefit up to 536,000 employers.

Everyone knows red tape hinders efficiency. It was a point raised at the round table I chaired along with the member for Ottawa West–Nepean.

The government has committed to cutting red tape. It has established the one-for-one rule and pledged to create a red tape reduction plan--

The House resumed from June 11 consideration of Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Speaker's Ruling—Bill C-38PrivilegePrivate Members' Business

June 13th, 2012 / 7:30 p.m.


See context

The Speaker Andrew Scheer

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on June 11 by the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition regarding information on the impact of Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures.

I thank the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition for having raised this question, as well as the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the hon. member for Winnipeg North for their comments.

The House Leader of the Official Opposition maintains that he was unable to secure the government's co-operation when he attempted to obtain information on the impact of Bill C-38 by means of written questions, questions asked during question period and in committee, and requests made through the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

He charged that this failure to respond to a requests for information impeded members in their ability to hold the government to account and “makes them vote blind on the actual budget”, thereby constituting a breach of members' privileges and a contempt of the House.

The House Leader of the Official Opposition also maintained that by refusing to respond to the request by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the government had violated the Federal Accountability Act, because the reasons given by the Clerk of the Privy Council to justify the refusal were not justifiable under the law.

The government House leader argued that the opposition House leader had failed to bring this matter to the attention of the Chair at the earliest opportunity. He contended that no specific part of Bill C-38 was objected to, arguing that the information referred to by the opposition House leader was, in any event, germane, not to budget implementation bills like Bill C-38 but rather to appropriation bills that Parliament would be asked to consider.

At the outset, it is important for members to know that it is not for the Speaker to decide whether the opposition House leader is correct in stating that the government is required by law to provide the Parliamentary Budget Officer with certain types of information. This is a legal question and is not a matter for the Chair to advocate, much less enforce.

In my ruling of October 24, 2011, which is found on pages 2404 and 2405 of Debates, I reminded the House of the long-standing principle that has guided the Chair in interpreting constitutional and legal matters. At the time, I also said:

...it is important to delineate clearly between interpreting legal provisions of statutes—which is not within the purview of the Chair—and ensuring the soundness of the procedures and practices of the House when considering legislation—which, of course, is the role of the Chair.

Thus, should members feel that the government is in breach of the Federal Accountability Act, redress for such grievances may be sought through the courts, not here in the chamber.

Echoing the ruling given by Speaker Milliken on April 27, 2010, on the question of privilege concerning the Afghan detainee documents, the opposition House leader argued that in a system of responsible government, the right of the House to hold the government to account for its actions is an indisputable privilege. In the 2010 case, however, the circumstances were quite different. There had been a House order and committee orders requiring the production of documents. So it was the responsibility of the Chair to ensure that the orders of the House were obeyed. In the case before us, there are no such orders and, in their absence, the Speaker has neither the authority nor the power to compel the production of information.

This brings us to the opposition House leader's core argument, namely, that members are being impeded in the performance of their parliamentary duties because the government is not providing them with certain information that they need to properly consider legislation and hold the government to account. The Chair treats all matters that touch on the privileges of members with great seriousness.

In that regard, it is completely legitimate to try to obtain information through a variety of means available to parliamentarians. Speaker Parent confirmed this when he stated, on page 688 of the House of Commons Debates:

In order to fulfill their parliamentary duties, members should of course have access to the information they require.

Members have every right to seek financial information at any time, they need not wait for it to be found in appropriation bills or any other legislative proposal. Such requests have happened before and they will doubtless happen again.

In the case before us, the opposition House leader has acknowledged that information was unsuccessfully sought through various means including written questions, questions posed during question period and questions posed in committee. I cannot presume to judge the quality of the responses that have been received.

Speaker Milliken clearly established this on December 1, 2010, on page 6677 of the House of Commons Debates:

...it is not for the Chair to decide whether an answer or response given to a question constitutes an answer to that question. It is beyond the competence of the Chair to make that kind of decision under our practice.

Similarly, O'Brien and Bosc at page 523 points out that it is not for the Speaker to determine the quality or accuracy of the information provided by the government. This is consistent as well with a ruling given by Speaker Bosley on May 15, 1985 at page 4769 of the Debates in which he states, “I think it has been recognized many times in the House that a complaint about the actions or inactions of government Departments cannot constitute a question of parliamentary privilege.”

Furthermore, as I noted earlier, there is no House or committee order requesting the information sought by the hon. member. The Chair appreciates his frustration and I understand that he may feel aggrieved in view of his unsuccessful quest for more detailed information.

However, while the member may have a legitimate grievance, I can find no evidence that he or any other member has been impeded in the fulfillment of their parliamentary duties. Accordingly, I cannot find that there is a prima facie question of privilege in this case.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

National Public Transit Strategy ActPrivate Members' Business

June 13th, 2012 / 6:40 p.m.


See context

Liberal

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand to talk about this wonderful bill, a bill to establish a national public transit strategy.

My riding has 200 communities and it is about as rural as can be, maybe not as rural as some other members ridings, but certainly the vast majority of ridings.

It is somewhat ironic that I am talking about a national transit strategy when a lot of the big spending would be on subway systems. The nearest subway system to my riding is in Boston, Massachusetts.

I do believe in the importance of the bill. Whether it is in Montreal, Toronto, or the SkyTrain in Vancouver, public transit and mass transit in this situation, like the subway or the SkyTrain, is beneficial to the nation.

There are several aspects of the bill that I appreciate fully. It will help to encourage dialogue about large cities and urban centres. It gives us the opportunity to discuss just how people will be moved around at a time when cities are expanding, like the greater Toronto area, where millions of people are set to arrive by 2020. Vancouver and Montreal are both going to expand. In places such as St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, or even Halifax, the transit system, primarily bus, or in the case of St. John's the metro bus, the infrastructure is there.

Public transit improves the environment because people can be moved into one vehicle. It also helps people who live in poverty and who are unable to find transportation of their own, either a car or motorcycle. Insurance costs are high and fuel costs are rising. Something like this would help alleviate poverty in a major way.

What I see is a bill that has a national dialogue about who we are. It takes stock of what we have thus far when it comes to infrastructure and builds and improves upon that.

I have lived in Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto. In each and every city I took advantage of the transit system. It was an advantage for me because I did not have a vehicle because I could not afford one, especially living in Vancouver. I was able to avail myself of the transit system there namely, the SkyTrain and the bus system to get to work.

Several aspects of the bill will improve the conversation in our country in addition to eventually improving the infrastructure situation.

Municipalities struggle. My hon. colleague mentioned earlier the FCM meeting that was held in Saskatchewan. Right now there is a funding deficit. Many municipalities, small or large, are now in a situation where they want to renew a fiscal framework with the provinces.

As members would know, municipalities are creations of the provinces. The Constitution recognizes two levels of government, federal and provincial. The provincial government, through its own municipal affairs department, looks after municipalities.

Only 8¢ of the average tax dollar winds its way through to municipal coffers. Imagine a city the size of Toronto, or even a mid-size city like Halifax, having to support a transit system primarily through its revenue from 8¢ of the tax dollar. That is not a substantial amount of money. This is what the FCM is talking about.

This bill provides us with the opportunity to have a discussion about transit and the strategies for each and every municipality. It would be a pan-national conversation. We could discuss options such as direct subsidies to individuals through the tax code or direct subsidies to the municipalities themselves.

We talk quite a bit about the gas revenue, which is shared with municipalities through the provinces. This initiative was started in 2005. A portion of the gas tax revenue or the excise tax is given to the municipalities and a lot of that goes to transit. Investing in public transit infrastructure benefits the people of Canada. Better public transit would result in cleaner, more productive cities and communities in which people could access the jobs and services that would be needed for economic growth.

Is it not ironic that in the budget we will vote on tonight, Bill C-38, are employment insurance reforms. One of the issues at play is the government trying to hook up people with full-time work within an hour's drive. That would be highly problematic in rural areas, especially with respect seasonal industries. Some people have said that EI recipients could go from the fish plant and work in tourism to help to expand it. However, according to the philosophy of what the government is putting in place when it comes to EI reforms, they cannot go from one seasonal industry to another unless it is expanded by a couple of weeks. Even still, the government is looking to have people work all year round. It wants to ensure that people do not become repeat users of EI, which is very problematic when it comes to seasonal work.

One of the solutions to employment is that people have to be within an hour's drive. If they are in a situation where they are offered a job that is less than an hour away and they do not have a vehicle in a rural area, forget it, it just will not work. However, in an urban area they have to look at investing in a monthly pass for either the bus or the subway, or perhaps a combination of the two.

How can we help these people who find themselves impoverished and have this kind of opportunity for work. When it comes to EI reform, it is not normally the situation that they are forced to do this, that they go about getting a job and have to invest in transportation for that. Is there a way we can use the tax code, which the government has done in certain circumstances, to provide a benefit for those who want to buy that monthly pass? At the same time, we should be compelled to look at some kind of system of direct subsidy to make it affordable so people can afford a monthly transit pass.

We are talking about the national public transit strategy act. In this act, the conversation is what is key. There are certain things, like the coordinated approach, that I find very beneficial to this nation.

The Minister of Transport, in consultation with the provincial ministers responsible for public transit, and with representatives of municipalities, transit authorities, and aboriginal communities, must encourage and promote a coordinated approach to the implementation of the national strategy for public transit and advise for the assistance, development and implementation of programs and practices in support of that strategy. How is that for a novel idea, a first ministers conference of some sort, where on the agenda they talk about a strategy for public transit?

Right now it seems as if the conversation between the federal and provincial governments is non-existent. We saw that during the supposed negotiations for the new health accord. There were no negotiations. There was an edict from the Prime Minister's Office. It came down to the provinces, and they were told to accept it.

Prior to this, when the Liberals were in government, negotiation took place between Paul Martin and the rest of the provinces.

Here is a novel idea. On the agenda a first ministers conference is an item in which there is a decent, fair discussion on how to provide affordable, effective and efficient transit for the major metropolitan areas and, by extension, on how to increase transport and infrastructure facilities such as highways in smaller rural areas.

The report to Parliament is also very interesting. The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities must cause a report on the conference, described in section 6, to be laid before the House. The House gets to debate any future national strategy for public transit. That too is a beneficial idea.

Therefore, I support this because it allows for the best practices from each major metropolitan area and, by extension, from the provinces. Then there can be discussions to determine if the best practices in British Columbia, whether it be the Lower Mainland of B.C., can be exercised in the greater metro Halifax area. We can share best practices with the Prairies, Winnipeg, maybe Saskatoon and Regina, and the cities of Toronto and Montreal. We then can determine the most efficient system that helps cut down on greenhouse gas emissions as well as helps to alleviate poverty, whether it is taxes or direct subsidies. However, the federal government needs to be engaged with the people who provide the services, namely the provinces, but specifically the municipalities.

Bill C-38PrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

June 13th, 2012 / 5:05 p.m.


See context

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate your comments and interjection.

I want to assure all members that in my experience through the years I have come to recognize that privileges are important. The reason so much attention is given to and a lot of discretion is allowed when a question of privilege is raised is so the member who raises the issue feels comfortable enough to adequately express what he or she believes is important to say. That is the spirit in which I raised point today.

I was present when the NDP House leader raised the privilege. I have had the opportunity to listen to many speeches regarding Bill C-38 and issues related to privilege.

The timing of my standing right now is critically important. Mr. Speaker, you have the power to make a difference in terms of what is going to happen over the next period of time. The Liberal Party as an entity, from what I understand, has not had the opportunity to express its thoughts on the privilege which the New Democratic Party member brought forward.

In the best way that I can, I will try to keep my comments short and concise, but I want to make sure that people understand why I feel it is so important and where I am coming from in regard to addressing this issue.

First and foremost, all members of Parliament have an important responsibility. Our constituents want to know that we are doing our job. Part of that job is what takes place on the floor of the House of Commons. We do our job in many different ways.

The privilege to which the member made reference is in regard to information that we have not been able to access. Not having access to information seriously impacts on our ability as members of Parliament to make good decisions.

The public has a great deal of interest in what we do inside the House. I always like to cut it down to two or three things. One of those things is the budget.

The Government of Canada spends a lot of money, in excess of $250 billion. As parliamentarians we have a responsibility to try to understand the kind of money that is being spent. We also need to be able to obtain information that the government has talked about in putting together its budget to present to the House. I could give a specific example in terms of my own critic portfolio. It is a relatively small expenditure, but it is an important expenditure which has a profound impact. That is why I say information is critically important. We ask the government to provide numbers and to tell us what type of offices are going to be closed down. We ask what impact it is going to have in terms of tax dollars.

There have been some significant changes in immigration. I want to cite a specific one. The Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism made an announcement not that long ago, in which he said that the government wants to deal with the immigration backlog. In wanting to deal with the immigration backlog, he referred to skilled workers. He said that workers who had applied through the skilled workers program prior to 2008 were going to be deleted from the data banks. The government has put money aside that ultimately is going to be used to reimburse the landing and processing fees.

In looking at that, we say that we are debating a very important bill on the budget and we need specific information related to that. How do we know that the numbers mentioned by the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism actually represent adequate compensation for those individuals? One could argue, as I have, that particular policy announcement was a cruel thing to have done, but at the end of the day, if we read the budget bill that we are expected to vote on intelligently, we need to have some very important information, and I am not convinced that information has been provided to us.

Let me use the example of someone from the Philippines who five years ago put in an application. According to this budget bill, the government is going to return that person's application fee and processing fee or landing fee. I am not 100% sure, but is important information to have. The government, with the passing of this budget bill, is going to be reimbursing those fees. If we look into it more deeply—

Bill C-38PrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

June 13th, 2012 / 4:55 p.m.


See context

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, the other day the official opposition raised a question of privilege of great importance. We indicated then that we would like to be able to respond to it. All Canadians would be concerned about what is taking place in the House of Commons. I will take this opportunity to get on the record why it is so critically important that the Speaker take into consideration what the House Leader of the Official Opposition has put on the record in this particular question of privilege.

As I am sure many members of the House recall, it is all related to Bill C-38. This bill would have a significant and profound impact on the lives of all Canadians. I want to express our concerns related to the question of privilege. This is probably the most opportune time to do so.

I take the issue very seriously. I have had many years to address important process questions inside the chamber. I, for one, believe in process. It is a critically important component of our democratic system to be able to stand in my place and express what I think is perhaps in the minds of many a boring issue, dealing with process. The Conservative government, likely more than any government before it, has been very negligent on the whole issue of process. So I want to share with the government some of my concerns.

We need to recognize that we are really talking about information. We have all heard the expression “information is gold”. It is critically important it is that we as legislators have access to information.

Over the years, I have met with a lot of youth. When I was over at the Manitoba legislature, young people would come down. Here, a lot of youth come and meet with their local members of Parliament to talk about what the politicians do in these buildings. When we reflect on the question of privilege that the House Leader of the Official Opposition brought to the floor the other day, it is important that we put into perspective what it is that we are telling people outside of this wonderful room. What we are really talking about is the rights of individual members of Parliament. We have to do what we can to protect those rights.

Over the years I have talked to hundreds, possibly thousands, of students and I often tell them that we do three things—

Bill C-38PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

June 13th, 2012 / 4:55 p.m.


See context

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, my second petition is signed by nearly 600 people from almost every province in Canada.

These written petitions resonate with the over 58,000 signatures that were revealed earlier today by the group Avaaz.

These petitioners from my riding, Mayne Island, North Saanich, Sidney, as well as from other places within British Columbia, Ottawa, Montreal, Alberta, Calgary and Edmonton, virtually coast to coast, from almost every province, call on this House of Commons to reject Bill C-38. They are calling on the current Privy Council officers to withdraw the parts of the bill that have nothing to do with the budget so that parliamentarians can do their job and vote on a budget implementation bill without voting to destroy environmental laws.

Old Age SecurityPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

June 13th, 2012 / 4:45 p.m.


See context

Liberal

Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have 12 petitions in which members of the metro Vancouver community call upon the government to maintain the current retirement age for old age security benefits.

The petitioners from Surrey, Richmond, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, north Vancouver, Vancouver, my riding of Vancouver Quadra and many other communities in metro Vancouver point out that over half of old age security recipients earn less than $25,000 a year, that this two year delay will cost up to $30,000 per person over two years for those with the lowest incomes and that single women will be disproportionately affected by the change.

The petitioners call upon the government to remove the two year increase from Bill C-38 to ensure that we do not increase income inequality with this measure.

The EnvironmentPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

June 13th, 2012 / 4:40 p.m.


See context

NDP

Matthew Kellway NDP Beaches—East York, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present to the House today.

With respect to the first petition, there is a project afoot to develop a megaquarry north of Toronto, in Melancthon country. This quarry would be big enough to swallow up 60% of my riding and deep enough to bury a 20-storey building. This megaquarry would sit atop a complex watershed and threaten to poison the drinking water of about one million Canadians. The farmland that it would take out of production produces about half the potatoes eaten in the GTA each year.

This is an issue that brings into stark relief the challenge of sustainable urban development. I am, therefore, happy to table in the House a petition calling upon the Government of Canada to conduct an environmental assessment of this megaquarry development.

May this petition, and the next one I will present, serve as a last minute reminder of what a tragic disservice the government proposes to visit, not only on Canadians, but on our Earth, with the anti-environmental provisions of Bill C-38.

I am honoured to table my second petition from citizens in and around my riding.

The petitioners are deeply concerned with the current perilous trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions and the rapidly closing window to avert dangerous global warming in a socially responsible manner.

Among other things, the petitioners call upon this Parliament, in concert with provinces and territories, to create and implement a science-based and innovative Canadian energy strategy that would position Canada as a world leader on climate change solutions.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

June 13th, 2012 / 3:10 p.m.


See context

Bloc

Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC

Mr. Speaker, in Bill C-38, by eliminating the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act and putting strict limits on the number of environmental assessments, the Conservatives are playing along with the oil companies and looking to accelerate pipeline approvals and oil sands development.

In an open letter to the Prime Minister, more than 100 environmental lawyers criticized this approach and cautioned that it could lead to many more legal battles.

Since it is not too late, does the government plan on withdrawing the provisions that are detrimental to the environment, as called for by the vast majority of Quebeckers and the Bloc Québécois?

Government SubsidiesOral Questions

June 13th, 2012 / 3:10 p.m.


See context

NDP

Pierre Dionne Labelle NDP Rivière-du-Nord, QC

Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-38, the Conservative government continues to muzzle anyone who has the misfortune of saying or thinking something that contradicts the Prime Minister's Office.

After attacking scientists, the Conservatives are now attacking civil society groups.

Environmental groups are not the only ones being put through the wringer. It is happening to other groups that are politically active, fighting to eliminate poverty or demand better housing, for example.

Why are the Conservatives so intent on going after all the groups that contradict them, instead of learning from their experience? Is this the Prime Minister's vision of democracy—starving anyone who says what he does not want to hear?

The EconomyOral Questions

June 13th, 2012 / 2:55 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

Mr. Speaker, later today the House will begin voting on legislation to implement economic action 2012. This important and necessary legislation takes long-term responsible steps to ensure Canada's finances are sustainable and support jobs and economic growth.

Around the world, Canadians see the negative economic and social consequences of countries that delay and defer necessary reforms. Canada simply cannot afford to delay action.

Could the Minister of Finance please underline for Canadians and the House the importance of Bill C-38 and economic action plan 2012?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

June 13th, 2012 / 2:45 p.m.


See context

Liberal

Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC

Mr. Speaker, if we really want to improve our assessment process, we need more scientists at the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Instead, the government decimated the agency and transferred its responsibilities to the National Energy Board, but this kind of work is not in the board's bailiwick. Then the government cut the board off at the knees so that pipelines could be built without appropriate assessments meant to protect the natural resources that communities depend on.

Why will the government not split up the indigestible mishmash that is Bill C-38 so that these environmental reforms can receive the parliamentary consideration they deserve?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

June 13th, 2012 / 2:45 p.m.


See context

Liberal

Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

Mr. Speaker, Canadians care about the environment too. Albertans are grappling with up to a half a million litres of crude oil spilled from a ruptured pipeline, which experts say may never be cleaned up.

Gord and Bonnie Johnston watched their waterfront property become a lake of oil. They are now living in a hotel wondering what to do next. Fifty years ago, when this pipeline was built, there was no effective environmental assessment in place, and now we see the consequences.

Will the Prime Minister explain personally to Mr. and Mrs. Johnston just why he is using Bill C-38 to unravel decades of work to improve environmental safeguards and results?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

June 13th, 2012 / 2:40 p.m.


See context

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Speaker, the NDP respects Canadian seniors, and that is why we will not vote in favour of the budget.

The environment commissioner said that with Bill C-38, there would be only 20 to 30 federal environmental assessments a year.

These irresponsible cuts will allow pipelines to cross our rivers with virtually no safeguards. But Canadians are already carrying the weight of $7 billion in environmental debt.

Why add to the environmental debt of future generations? Why are the Conservatives so irresponsible?