Bill C-38 (Historical)

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

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.

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

Thank you.

With Bill C-38 and the budget that has been announced, cuts are going to affect your work. I would like you to tell me a little about that. Is this something you were expecting? Have you proposed the agencies you were not required to audit? How does this work, in these circumstances?

[Martin von Mirbach, Director, Canadian Arctic Program, World Wildlife Fund (Canada)]

Mr. Chairman, committee members, thank you for inviting the WWF to appear before you today to contribute to your important study on resource development in northern Canada. I'll limit my remarks this morning mainly to offshore oil and gas development in Arctic waters, informed by past experiences in the Mackenzie Valley as well as offshore developments elsewhere.

WWF's mission is to stop the degradation of the planet's environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature. With 150,000 supporters across Canada and 5 million worldwide, we have an outstanding history of partnership with government and industry in Canada and globally.

Today, as we address this committee, WWF is releasing its eighth Living Planet Report in major capitals and business centres around the world. The key findings of this latest report are that while the global demand for natural resources has doubled since 1966, biodiversity has declined by roughly 30% over the same period. The economic and human costs of poor stewardship in an increasingly populated world could be devastating to the prospects for society and the world's economies.

The WWF recognizes and supports the need for carefully planned economic development in the Arctic, in particular, development that provides long-term sustainable benefits to northerners. We also acknowledge that Arctic development is being contemplated in the context of a projected growth of 500 new projects nationwide in the coming decade, attracting $500 billion in new investments. More than ever, now is the time for our government to step forward and demonstrate convincingly to Canadians that there is a regulatory and policy regime in place that is equal to the task of planning, assessing, and implementing these new projects in a manner that conserves key environmental and cultural values and minimizes conflicts with other social, economic, and environmental objectives.

For example, one key cross-cutting objective is the urgent need for effective action to address climate change, which requires national leadership and coordinated global action. The WWF has published a study, The Energy Report: 100% Renewable Energy by 2050, that charts the potential to achieve a renewable energy future. In this context, new investment in high-cost, high-risk fossil fuel developments is arguably questionable public policy, particularly if it is not accompanied by more effective mitigation actions for national climate change than we've seen to date.

Recent measures embedded in Bill C-38 are designed to accelerate the project review and approval process. An effective and streamlined regulatory approach is certainly a laudable goal, but only if it actually achieves the objectives of the review process—to understand the potential negative impacts and avoid, minimize, or mitigate them. In the case of Arctic offshore oil and gas development, there are reasons to believe that a more cautious approach is appropriate that, if done right, would potentially be beneficial.

Last year we participated in the National Energy Board's review of offshore oil and gas regulations in the Arctic and made several detailed submissions. Our key recommendations are summarized in the presentation we made to the NEB round table in September 2011, a copy of which has been shared with you. This morning I'll simply note a few of the knowledge and technology gaps that exist in the Arctic context.

Compared with other regions of Canada, the Arctic has relatively sparse environmental baseline data on species distribution and abundance. This dearth of information is compounded by the accelerating impacts of climate change in Arctic waters, with significant uncertainties about how ecosystem components will respond to those changes. The impacts of unprecedented new developments in Arctic waters add a further degree of uncertainty to the picture.

It is encouraging to note that the Beaufort regional environmental assessment, although misnamed since it has no assessment mandate, will address many of these knowledge gaps during its five-year mandate. As well, the WWF has recently published an analytical tool for identifying and mapping features that support ecosystem functioning in a changing Arctic.

The challenges of operating under arctic conditions are well-known: woefully inadequate logistical and support capabilities, with technical crews and equipment far distant and difficult to mobilize; short operating seasons; harsh environmental conditions that strain the performance limits of people and equipment; and the unique challenges of spilled oil in icy conditions. Using research prepared for the NEB, we found that during the short summer season in the Beaufort Sea, conditions are likely to be too harsh to deploy emergency response personnel 65% to 85% of the time. Throughout the remaining long winter months, there would be no ability to carry out blowout capping or cleanup operations. The treatments themselves, including dispersants, containment, and in situ burning, are less effective in ice-infested Arctic waters.

To put it bluntly, there's currently no oil spill response capacity to address a sizeable well blowout or large-scale spill in Arctic waters. This message is echoed in a recent report from the leading international insurance company, Lloyd's, which concludes that cleaning up any oil spill in the Arctic would present “multiple obstacles, which together constitute a unique and hard-to-manage risk”, and which urges companies not to “rush in [but to] step back and think carefully about the consequences of that action”.

Lloyds is not the only business interest to question the advisability of offshore oil drilling in the Arctic. WestLB, a bank based in Germany, will no longer loan money to offshore oil projects in the Arctic. As a spokesperson for the bank put it, “the further you get into the icy regions, the more expensive everything gets and there are risks that are almost impossible to manage. Remediation of any spills would cost a fortune”.

As you can see, it's not only conservation groups who believe that we're not yet ready to move forward with offshore Arctic drilling. However, while we address the aforementioned knowledge and technology gaps we can and should simultaneously invest in the full range of preparations needed to move closer to sustainable development in the Arctic.

First, time is needed to develop and test new methods to increase the safety of operations and the efficacy of oil-spill cleanup; to strengthen Arctic support infrastructure, including search, rescue, and spill response capacity; and to provide the training needed for northerners to benefit from new developments in their territory.

Second, there are no easy shortcuts when consulting with affected parties, especially Indigenous rights holders. In this regard, I call your attention to the “Circumpolar Inuit Declaration on Resource Development Principles in Inuit Nunaat”, copies of which have been shared with you. This declaration was developed by and on behalf of the Inuit Circumpolar Council and its constituent members. It recognizes that responsible development, including from non-renewable resources, “can make an important and durable contribution to the well-being of current and future generations of Inuit”. But a common concern throughout is that the pace of development must not outstrip the capacity of Inuit to participate meaningfully in addressing the challenges and taking advantage of the benefits of development. I urge you to study this declaration and to invite the ICC to speak with you about it.

Third, the regulatory review process for offshore oil and gas activity would proceed more smoothly and with less expensive and time-consuming conflict if it occurred in the context of a previously completed regional marine spatial plan. Such a plan would consider all significant activities in an integrated way and explicitly delineate areas where activity can occur as well as sensitive areas meriting special consideration. It would be developed in an inclusive manner involving all stakeholders, resulting in an open, transparent, and accountable decision-making process that produces socially acceptable decisions. These conditions don't currently exist in the Canadian Arctic, although there are noteworthy planning processes such as the Beaufort Sea partnership that can be built upon and learned from. As well, strategic environmental assessment is a tool that can address cumulative impacts and set overall thresholds for an entire region. Investment in upfront ecoregion-wide planning ultimately results in less financial and political uncertainty.

Forth, we have an excellent opportunity to strengthen the circumarctic governance regime for offshore development. Oil spills ignore national boundaries and, therefore, it is in our strong self-interest to ensure consistent and good regulations are in place and effectively implemented throughout the Arctic. Initiatives are currently under way through the Arctic Council—the chair of which Canada will assume in 2013—to create internationally binding rules on offshore Arctic oil development. In taking part in those negotiations, Canada has an opportunity to secure the well-being of its northern people by ensuring that development in Canada and in neighbouring countries is held to the same high standards.

Fifth, we have an opportunity in Canada to develop a truly visionary Canadian energy strategy, charting a course for Canada that is aligned with this country's climate change commitments and that addresses the shortcomings noted in the recent report by the environment and sustainable development commissioner. Opening up new frontiers for oil and gas development without a long-term energy plan that tackles CO2 emissions risks pushing us further from our national goals and international responsibilities. In an increasingly carbon constrained world, this can affect not just Canada's reputation but also our access to markets for our products and services.

In conclusion, there is currently insufficient knowledge and inadequate technology and infrastructure to safely carry out drilling in Canadian Arctic waters. More time is required to address these gaps, but this necessity can become a virtue if at the same time we collectively invest in the research, planning, infrastructure, and dialogue that are the key characteristics of responsible stewardship. It may take longer for new Arctic developments to come on stream, but those developments, whatever they turn out to be, will be better planned; less contentious, with greater social licence; and less risky for investors, governments, communities, and the environment.

The WWF stands ready to work collaboratively with government and industry to chart a course for well-planned and sustainable development in the Arctic.

Once again I thank you for giving me the opportunity to share our views with you.

[Jeff Surtees, Chief Executive Officer, Trout Unlimited Canada]

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank the committee on behalf of our organization for the opportunity to appear today and to make submissions. My name is Jeff Surtees. I'm the CEO of Trout Unlimited Canada.

Our organization is a national habitat conservation organization. We were created 40 years ago, in 1972, with the mission to conserve, protect, and restore Canada's freshwater ecosystems. We were started by anglers, by people who like to fish, and we're now supported by anglers and non-anglers alike across the country. We're governed by a volunteer board of directors and have volunteer chapters in the Maritimes, in Quebec—well, we have one in Quebec, but we're going to have a lot more soon—in Ontario, in Alberta, and in British Columbia.

We work with communities and we work with local volunteers. We take pride in being an action-oriented organization. We are completely non-partisan and non-political. The bulk of our funding comes from Canadian individuals and corporations, and only a small amount from government sources at this time. We've always worked cooperatively with industry and governments of all stripes. Our members believe we've earned our place at the table by being an organization that fixes things. We like to do more than to talk about doing.

Our habitat work involves stream restoration, monitoring, and assessment, all based on sound science. To our members, a cold-water stream or river is a place of almost infinite beauty, a place where life begins. Our work also involves educating schoolchildren through our Yellow Fish Road program. In that program, thousands of participants go out with their class or community group and paint a small yellow fish on a storm drain in their community to remind people that everything in the physical world is connected. Storm drains are connected directly to rivers, and by pouring something down a drain you're pouring it right into some animal's house.

We were provided with five questions to guide our submissions today, and I'm going to focus my remarks on just the third and fourth of those questions, which were: what should the guiding principles of a national conservation plan be, and what should the conservation priorities of a national conservation plan be? Then we'll make a short comment on the fifth question, which is, what should the implementation priorities of a national conservation plan be?

The first question—which is the third question—is what guiding principles should govern in a national conservation plan. We have four guiding principles to suggest. They are very consistent with the comments that have been made to you by the other people giving testimony today.

The first guiding principle that we suggest is that the national conservation plan must be based on sound science. Conservation and restoration require a deep understanding of the biophysical conditions and processes that create habitat where animal and plant populations live. A conservation plan must use the best science available to ensure that we maintain and restore these biophysical functions. When we say “based on sound science”—and we hear that phrase in a lot of contexts these days—to us it means that the plan is guided by information that is measurable and is measured; that it identifies the links between physical structure and the actual functioning of a watershed or landscape; and thirdly and very importantly, that it addresses the cumulative effect of all activities within the watershed or landscape.

The second suggested guiding principle relates to scale. Conservation planning must be done at an ecologically relevant geographic scale and on an ecologically relevant time scale. We submit that the proper geographic scale for the individual components of the national conservation plan must be, at a minimum, the scale of the entire ecosystem or the entire watershed in question. The proper time scale must be very long. The decision has to be based on thinking that is at least decades, if not hundreds of years, into the future rather than on the expediencies of the day.

The third suggested guiding principle is that the national conservation plan should strive to educate all Canadians about ecology. We just have to raise the bar of common knowledge. Increased ecological literacy should, we believe, lead to a deeper level of caring, which should, we believe, lead to positive participation in community action. People who care and people who know a little more will care more and will do more in a positive way.

The fourth and final guiding principle that we suggest is that the implementation of a national conservation plan must be adequately funded and resourced. It absolutely must have long-term support from all levels of government. If the plan includes work to be done by groups like all of ours here at the table, there must be mechanisms in place to help those organizations within the non-profit sector to remain sustainable. Many very good organizations spend a great deal of time and effort just trying to stay alive.

I'm going to move to question four, the conservation priorities that should be included in the national conservation plan. Our belief is that if we get the guiding principles right, the conservation priorities should flow directly from them. I'm only going to comment on conservation priorities that fall under Trout Unlimited Canada's mandate as an organization, which is dealing with small freshwater streams and rivers. Many other priorities that other organizations will probably put forward will be equally valid.

Guiding principle number one that we have suggested is that the plan must be based on sound science. The science that we have put together shows that work can be prioritized and be made more effective that way. The prioritization we use is this. The highest priority work to be done on small streams and rivers is that work which improves water quality. First, you think about quality. The second highest priority is work that maintains or improves the quantity of water in a system. The third and fourth highest priority work would be to improve physical habitat, and to work directly on managing fish populations through stocking or removing fish from a system, and in both cases, focusing on the maintenance and restoration of native species before non-native species. Again, the conservation priorities to be consistent with the guiding principles would be implemented on a minimum of a watershed scale in a manner that can be sustained indefinitely.

I'll move to question five. I have a brief comment on it. What should the implementation priorities of a national conservation plan be? This is a very difficult question for us. We had a lot of debate among our board members, and I have received a lot of calls from our members about it. It's a difficult question for us to address right now because, Mr. Chairman, we were asked to stick to the agenda—the matter directly before the committee, and I will do that—but everything is connected.

The work that is being done under Bill C-38, the changes that are being made, directly affect the work of this committee. It's a fact. When we're asked for recommendations about implementation plans, we think, “How we can do that?” We have to know what the regulations are going to say that are being brought in under the changes to the pieces of legislation in the bill. That's where the implementation is going to be. It is connected to the national conservation plan. As I say, we will work cooperatively with whatever system our elected representatives put in place. We will work under that, and we will offer our services to help. We believe, as an organization, that if an activity, industrial or otherwise, causes harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of fish habitat, an environmental assessment must be triggered. That is being changed, we think. We have to be against that.

A national conservation plan, to live up to its name, has to be a big thing, a grand thing, a thing of great vision, something the whole country can be proud of, and something that is supported across all levels of government—municipal, provincial, and federal. The whole of government has to act in a way that is consistent with that theory, or little will have been accomplished.

I thank you for your work on this committee and look forward to participating further. Those our submissions.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Ms. Chow's motion deals with Bill C-38, which is a bill for jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity. Canadians elected us with a strong mandate to create jobs, promote growth, and bring about long-term prosperity, hence the bill.

Therefore, especially in these times of economic uncertainty, when we see the consequences of big government overspending in places like Greece and throughout Europe, it's important for us to pass this low-tax plan and to get busy balancing the budget so that our economy can be strong and our people can prosper.

Therefore, I move that we adjourn debate on the motion.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What I want to do is really find some ways to talk about the motion that was in front of us last Thursday. I can assure Mr. Burke that we will definitely hear him and that we will definitely have a chance to discuss Westport's contribution to the new emerging technologies.

When I left off last week I wanted to talk about the importance of our committee studying the three changes in front of our committee in Bill C-38. I was reading the first changes that we have in front of us. I believe there are two sections that are being changed in the Railway Safety Act, which we really need to study. The first one is section 16 of the act, to which would be added after subsection (5), which gives the order in council:

(5.1) The Governor in Council may make regulations exempting any railway work, or any person or railway company, from the application of subsection (4.1).

Subsection (4.1) was added to say that:

if...the proponent of the railway work...is a road authority, the maximum amount of the construction and alteration costs of the railway work that the Agency may, under subsection (4), apportion to the road authority is 12.5% of those costs.

My question is, why is that 12.5%? If it's a higher percentage, why is it a higher percentage, etc.?

And then there's another section. It basically asks that the regulation would be published for a short period of time so that people would be able to comment.

That's the first change that we really need to look at.

The second change is to the Canada Marine Act, and it won't take very long.

In the Canada Marine Act, again, if any port authority wants to borrow money, that has to be approved by the Governor in Council, i.e., the cabinet needs to approve how much money is being borrowed. I'm not necessarily against that. I think it's a good idea to have the order in council, but again, we really need to look at why there is a change.

So basically there are three parts that were changed. The first one is in the Railway Safety Act, with the 12.5% question; the second part is the one giving the power to cabinet to exempt any railway work in any application; and the third is the part of the Canada Marine Act that asks that the Governor in Council must approve any borrowing.

Actually, there's another portion about the appointment of CEOs of airlines, I believe, that are governed by the government; they have to be picked by the Governor in Council, the cabinet. Again, there's a centralization of power. I question why that has to occur. That's why my motion is to request that this committee examine the changes in Bill C-38, which is the budget bill that we voted on yesterday.

It's in front of the finance committee, but I don't believe the finance committee will look at matters that are related to the Transport Canada portfolio.

The House resumed from May 11 consideration of the motion that Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Report Stage

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the MP spoke to the bill itself. Today we have heard Conservative members speak to other bills and speak generally about Bill C-38, such as the member for Nipissing—Timiskaming or the member for Oak Ridges—Markham, and lecture us about not telling the truth.

My question is simple and is directed to the member for Oak Ridges—Markham. Conservatives talked about the government creating jobs directly through this legislation. How many jobs are going to be created through Bill C-11?

Oral Questions

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope this is properly put as a point of order. I noted earlier in question period, in debate, that the Conservative members of Parliament made note of the long speech of the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster and claimed that it had prevented people from speaking to the elements of Bill C-38.

I merely wish to point out that long after the member for Burnaby—New Westminster ceased speaking, Bill C-38 was introduced two weeks later.

Nothern Economic Development

[John Duncan, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, increased borrowing limits for the territories is a vital step toward increased prosperity for northern communities. It will be used to support critical infrastructure projects such as the road between Inuvik and Tuktoyaktuk, a project the NWT government and aboriginal leadership support.

I urge the NDP member from NWT to reverse his stance and support Bill C-38. Northerners benefit from this government's successful agreement with the territories.

Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, economic action plan 2012 promotes jobs, growth and economic prosperity for all Canadians. We do this by keeping taxes low, so that businesses will expand and hire more people.

However, it was no surprise on March 29, after only a few hours of review, that the tax-and-spend NDP declared its opposition to this pro-jobs and pro-growth plan.

Tonight we will implement a key part of economic action plan 2012 by supporting Bill C-38. This vote will implement a plan that will help create more new jobs on top of the more than 750,000 net new jobs that have been created since July of 2009.

Instead of playing silly procedural games, maybe the NDP should start acting responsibly, focus on the economy and support a real plan that will create jobs and growth for all Canadians.

Nutrition Among Children

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all I would like to once again thank my colleague from Ottawa—Orléans for this motion.

Obesity is a chronic disease that is becoming increasingly prevalent among children and youth. Today, 26% of children between the ages of 2 and 17 are overweight or obese. Setting aside the statistics, we are dealing with children who are made to feel self-conscious by others. In addition to living with the physical problems caused by obesity, such as diabetes and respiratory difficulty, overweight children are often the targets of teasing and bullying in the street or schoolyard. The insults often leave permanent scars.

A study by Dr. Wendy Craig, a professor of psychology at Queen's University in Kingston, indicates that obese children are more often victims of abuse, which robs them of their confidence and self-esteem.

Dr. Rebecca Puhl, a professor at Yale University in Connecticut, has also studied the psychological effects of childhood obesity. In addition to affecting their self-image, abuse fuels their unhealthy eating habits and inactivity.

Childhood obesity also increases the risk of adult obesity. According to the Heart and Stroke Foundation, an obese 4-year-old is 20% more likely to become an obese adult. This rate increases to an alarming 80% for adolescents. Over the span of a quarter century, the rates of obesity among children and youth have almost tripled in Canada. We are now seeing children with “adult” problems such as high cholesterol, sleep apnea and high blood pressure.

We must remember that the causes of obesity can be a combination of social, cultural, environmental and economic factors and that some populations are at greater risk than others. Aboriginal populations have a high rate of obesity. Approximately 20% of aboriginal children aged 6 to 14 living off-reserve are obese. And for children living on-reserve the rate is even higher—26%.

One of the causes is that it is difficult for aboriginal people to access healthy food that is affordable. For example, a litre of pop is often three times cheaper than a litre of juice or milk.

Healthy and nutritious foods—fresh fruits and vegetables, for example—are more expensive and harder to find the further away we get from large urban centres. The rate of obesity is often higher in rural areas and in the far north of Canada.

Access to nutritious food is therefore a major part of the problem. Many people cannot afford to buy these foods. Over 800,000 Canadians need to use food banks to survive and, today, over 2.5 million Canadians are affected by food insecurity.

Nevertheless, the right to food is recognized by most of the major international conventions that Canada has signed. The first of these to come to mind may be the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but there is also the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 24 of this binding treaty requires states parties to “combat disease and malnutrition...through the provision of adequate nutritious foods and clean drinking-water”.

The situation in Canada has deteriorated to the point where the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food is here in Canada, and has been since Tuesday, on a mission to assess the situation. The rapporteur will consider access to healthy and affordable food for vulnerable groups such as children, aboriginal people and people in remote areas. He will examine factors such as obesity, malnutrition, and food production and distribution.

Today, junk food is everywhere and is offered at low prices by large fast food chains, while healthy, nutritious, locally produced foods are often more expensive and more difficult to find. Some elementary and secondary school cafeterias still have french fries, hot dogs and hamburgers on their menus. Some snack bars are strategically located close to schools. Young people simply have to cross the street at lunch time to get a poutine. This certainly does not help combat childhood obesity.

Physical inactivity is also an important contributing factor to the growing problem of childhood obesity. Many parents cannot afford to register their children in sports or to buy the equipment needed for these activities. In small communities, there is often not enough funding to build sports infrastructure. Even the way our cities are designed does not encourage people to be active. This motion makes it possible to continue the public debate on the critical issue of obesity. But right now, we need more than debate: we need to take action. All the experts are saying so.

Obesity is not just a health problem. It is a problem that is costly for society as a whole. A recent analysis conducted by the Public Health Agency of Canada showed that the total cost of obesity is estimated to be $4.3 billion—$1.8 billion in direct health care costs and $2.5 billion in indirect costs.

There is no more time to lose. Studies, expert committees and recommendations have been piling up for years, but the government still refuses to do anything about it.

This motion is based on the Declaration on Prevention and Promotion signed by federal, provincial and territorial health ministers, and on the framework for action on curbing childhood obesity. The declaration states that population health depends on environmental, social, economic and cultural factors in society. We need measures to tackle the social and environmental conditions I have just described: taking into account remoteness, the price of food, the need for infrastructure that supports physical activity and junk food regulation, among other things.

Unfortunately, I am not aware of any useful measures the government has introduced recently to address these issues. Worse still, Bill C-38 undermines all existing regulations that might help people achieve better health.

I would also like to remind the House that, in 2005, as I mentioned earlier in my question, the federal government set up a trans fat task force, which recommended limiting trans fat content to 2% of total fat content for all vegetable oils and spreadable margarines, and 5% for all other foods.

In 2007, the government agreed to all of the recommendations and gave the industry two years to voluntarily reduce trans fat content in its food products. Some companies took action, while others did nothing. In 2009, the Minister of Health, the current Conservative minister, promised to take further action, but we learned recently that the plan to draft regulations was aborted. In February, a research centre obtained documents under the Access to Information Act showing that in 2010, the minister ordered the regulatory plan scrapped.

Why? Such measures would have helped fight child poverty. That was one of the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Health in 2007 when it studied the issue. The committee also recommended establishing childhood obesity reduction targets to bring the obesity rate down to 6% by 2020. The committee also recommended implementing measures with the first nations to address problems of access to food.

All of these measures could make a real difference in the fight against childhood obesity.

The NDP has always pushed for regulations governing trans fat content in foods. In 2004, the member for Winnipeg Centre introduced a private member's bill that was adopted unanimously.

Another group of experts, who studied sodium in processed foods, also made recommendations to the minister two years ago. We know that high sodium intake is a significant risk factor for high blood pressure, strokes and heart attacks. The working group recommended an annual reduction of 5% in sodium intake until 2016.

Guess what? The government decided to disband the working group. In December 2010, the minister said that she no longer needed the group. We do not know what strategy the government will adopt with respect to reducing sodium in food.

One member of the group, who is also the national coordinator of the Centre for Science in the Public Interest, had this to say:

What is worrisome, is not just that the group was dismantled, but that the minister has remained silent about the future of our recommendations. This suggests that the department is not on the same page as the group's experts.

So why is this government afraid of experts, researchers and scientific facts? Why set up working groups on trans fats, sodium, the environment, the F-35s and others, and then dismantle all these groups and reject all their recommendations? Is this government protecting the interests of some—industry, to name just one—to the detriment of all Canadians?

In short, with regard to what we are discussing today—childhood obesity—I will support the hon. member's motion, but at the same time, I would like to remind the House that, although the causes of obesity are complex, we know what can be done to tackle this issue. The time for debate and discussion is over: it is time for action.

I hope this government will take the action necessary to combat childhood obesity in order to protect children's health today and in the years to come, and will take into account the recommendations by the expert panels that it put in place itself.

Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Madam Speaker, things are looking very bad. I really mean it. The Conservatives have invoked closure for the 18th time on a bill that is over 400 pages long.

Bill C-38 is no mere budget implementation bill. It is an omnibus bill that amends at least 60 Canadian laws. The proposed measures are so numerous and will have such serious consequences that people will be feeling their effects for decades, not just over the coming year.

We need enough time to study such a far-reaching bill. If the Conservatives truly believed that the measures in this bill were reasonable, they would split it up and make real debate possible. Instead, they would rather do things on the sly. What are the Conservatives really afraid of?

Canadians are fed up with the government's lack of transparency. The Conservatives should lay their cards on the table. But that is not what they are doing. By using Bill C-38 as a Trojan Horse, the Conservatives have made it clear that they have a hidden agenda. Our fellow citizens want all of the necessary information about the proposed measures. They have the right to know. But being transparent is not how the Conservatives operate, and all Canadians will end up paying the price for that.

Bill C-38 reduces the Auditor General's oversight powers. This is the same Auditor General who said two weeks ago that Conservative ministers knew the real cost of the F-35s. How can the Conservatives possibly justify to Canadians this decision to slash away at an institution as important and respected as the Auditor General? My constituents and I find this very disturbing.

In terms of jobs, Bill C-38 only makes matters worse; it does not improve anything. The Parliamentary Budget Officer recently confirmed that the most recent budget will lead to the loss of up to 43,000 jobs by 2014. From a strictly economic standpoint, every member of this House should be considering the consequences of so many lost jobs on the economy in our communities and on Canada's economic recovery.

When a factory that employs 1,000 people shuts down, the socio-economic repercussions are felt in that region immediately. Suppliers, small and medium-sized businesses and families are all affected. What the Conservatives are proposing is the equivalent of closing 43 factories that employ 1,000 people each, all across Canada.

The Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians to create jobs, not to increase unemployment, which is what he is doing. In my riding of Hull—Aylmer, several thousand people—people who have families—are going to lose their main source of income, all because of the Conservatives' austerity budget.

Meanwhile, the government continues to claim that its top priority is employment. How can it seriously tell Canadians that its priority is job creation, when it plans to cut 43,000 jobs? Any good economist will agree that job losses have a negative impact on household spending. When Canadian families are not spending money, small businesses are forced to close. And when small businesses shut down, people lose their jobs. It is a vicious circle, as we know. The Conservatives should know that.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-38, the budget implementation act. Indeed, I am proud to participate in this debate, the longest ever allotted for a budget bill certainly within the last 20 years.

Our government's priority remains the economy. This budget is squarely focused on job creation and economic growth for today and into the future. It has been said before, and it is worth repeating, that the best way to reduce poverty is to ensure that Canadians have jobs. That is exactly what this budget will accomplish. How will we do that? By keeping taxes low, investing in our future, creating opportunity and returning to balanced budgets at an appropriate pace. At the same time, we are supporting our families, investing in our communities and taking care of our most vulnerable.

Our government has proven to be excellent managers of the economy. In fact, we are the envy of the world. As members know, Forbes magazine ranks us as the best country on the planet in which to invest and grow a business. That is not accidental, but a result of six years of focused work.

In 2006, members may recall, we launched Advantage Canada, our strategic and comprehensive economic plan to foster strong, sustainable, long-term growth. We set out to show the world who and what we are, a modern, dynamic and tolerant country. We did this by understanding and building on Canada's advantages.

Our tax advantage comes from setting out to reduce taxes for all Canadians and establishing the lowest tax rate on new business investment in the G7. Our fiscal advantage comes from charting a course to eliminate Canada's debt. I am proud to say that we paid down $37 billion before the global recession struck in 2008. Our entrepreneurial advantage comes from committing to reducing unnecessary regulation and red tape and increasing competition in the Canadian marketplace. Our knowledge advantage comes from creating the best educated, most skilled and most flexible workforce in the world. Our infrastructure advantage comes from building the modern infrastructure we need.

We set out four principles which would guide our policy decisions to improve our quality of life and make Canada a world leader for today and future generations.

We are focusing government on what it does best, so that it is responsible in its spending, efficient in its operations, effective in its results and accountable to taxpayers.

We are creating new opportunities and choices for people by creating incentives for people to excel right here at home, reducing taxes and investing in education, training and transition-to-work opportunities so that Canadians can achieve their potential and have the choices they want.

We are investing for sustainable growth by investing and seeking partnerships with the provinces and the private sector in strategic areas that contribute to strong economies, including primary scientific research, a clean environment and modern infrastructure.

We are freeing businesses to grow and succeed to create the right economic conditions to encourage firms to invest and flourish.

I raise these points today because it is important for Canadians to know that their government has a focused, long-range strategic plan committed to improving their quality of life. Our economic plan is working. Budget 2012 is a continuation of our unwavering commitment to keep Canada the envy of the world.

I am proud to be a member of a government that understands the fundamental economic principle that resources are limited, and that there is only one taxpayer. Unlike the opposition, we understand that governments cannot continually raise taxes. Indeed, government, just like all Canadians, has to keep its house in order. That is what we are doing with budget 2012. We are getting our house in order. Through generating ongoing savings from operational efficiencies and making modest reductions, we are on track to returning to balanced budgets over the medium term. I emphasize that we are doing this without reducing transfers to persons or to other levels of government.

In fact, federal transfers to provinces and territories will reach an all-time high this year of $59 billion, which is $3 billion more than last year.

The facts speak for themselves. We have created almost 700,000 net new jobs since the recession ended in July 2009. These are good jobs: 90% of them are full time. We are one of only two G7 countries to regain all of the jobs lost in the recession. We continue to garner global praise for our management of the economy.

I mentioned that our priorities are jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity. I would like to highlight some of the ways we are accomplishing these.

We are lowering taxes. Today the average family of four is paying $3,000 less in taxes than when our government took office in 2006. We did this by reducing the GST from 7% to 5%; allowing seniors to split their pensions between spouses; establishing a working income tax benefit for low-income, working Canadians; establishing the registered disability savings plan and the tax-free savings plan; reducing the lowest personal income tax rate from 16% to 15%; and bringing in measures such as the children's arts tax credit, the children's fitness tax credit and the very popular tax-free savings account.

We reduced business taxes. By reducing corporate taxes to 15%, we are now one of the most attractive places to invest, an incredible advantage we worked hard to achieve. We will see the benefits of this now and in the future. We cut the small business tax rate to 11% and we increased the threshold to $500,000. In total we have provided $60 billion in business tax relief, money that is available for reinvestment, purchasing and, most importantly, hiring.

We created new opportunities through trade. Since 2006 we have signed nine free trade agreements. These are benefiting people in Newmarket—Aurora and all of Canada. As a result, our businesses are benefiting from new economic opportunities that extend beyond our borders. We have exciting possibilities with many more agreements. They are progressing with the EU, India and Japan, just to name a few. Economic action plan 2012 proposes to intensify Canada's pursuit of new trade opportunities.

We are growing the economy by creating value-added jobs through innovation. Canada's long-term economic competitiveness in the emerging knowledge economy demands globally competitive businesses that can innovate, collaborate and create high-value jobs.

We are enacting a comprehensive plan to improve support for business innovation and to make Canadian firms compete better in the global marketplace. We are doing this by investing $1.1 billion to directly support research and development. We are refocusing the National Research Council and injecting an additional $110 million into that institute, which will include the doubling of support for the international research assistance program.

We are helping high-growth, innovative firms to access risk capital by making $500 million available for venture capital activities. This is most welcomed by the entrepreneurs in my riding of Newmarket—Aurora. Investments through programs like the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario and the industrial research assistance program have helped businesses expand, bring products to market and create jobs. Companies like Gum Products, Axiom, Your Solar Home and Treefrog International have all added high-value jobs and helped diversify our local economy.

We are making investments to assist more young people gain the skills and experience they need by investing in training, infrastructure and opportunity. We are putting $30 million into the opportunities fund to help Canadians with disabilities acquire work experience. We are making EI predictable for employers, allowing them to better make employment decisions while removing the disincentive to work at the same time.

We have also reduced red tape for businesses. Reducing red tape is good for everyone. It helps our businesses compete and creates jobs for Canadians. It represents a low-cost way to stimulate the economy and boost productivity. That is why we are working hard for Canadians.

I look forward to questions from my colleagues.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to have this chance to speak in the House today about this Trojan Horse budget. I was concerned that all discussion would be shut down by the government because, unfortunately, this is a budget that includes many separate bills that have very little to do with fiscal management.

If passed, this omnibus bill of over 400 pages would do little to get our economy going or to help people get back to work. What it would do is gut environmental protection, rewrite Canada's fishery law and change the age of retirement in this country.

While this so-called budget implementation bill is supposed to implement the budget, it would go far beyond what was outlined in the recent federal budget. Quite simply, it is profoundly inappropriate for the government to put so many sweeping changes to so many different areas in this omnibus bill. It is bad public policy and it is becoming abundantly clear that the members opposite are trying to hide from their obligation to provide responsible oversight. Rather, they seem determined to avoid accountability.

I want to highlight some of the key changes this bill would make.

It would raise the age of eligibility for OAS and GIS from 65 to 67.

It would repeal the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act. This would mean the government would no longer be required to report on its greenhouse gas emissions under the act. It would gut the environmental assessment regime and fish habitat protection in order to speed up major projects, including pipelines.

It would give cabinet the ability to ignore the National Energy Board and approve a project that the NEB has turned down. It would delegate environmental assessments to other authorities, including the provinces, and would change the definition of “interested parties” to weaken public participation in environmental decision-making to exclude anyone not directly affected by a project.

It would eliminate the Inspector General of CSIS. This would drastically reduce accountability at CSIS.

Also, it would eliminate Auditor General oversight of a number of agencies.

It would repeal the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. This would allow employers to undercut union wage rates for construction workers engaged in projects funded by the federal government.

It would amend the Employment Equity Act so that it would no longer apply to federal contractors. This is a direct attack on women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities, and visible minorities.

It would amend the rules for determining the extent to which a charity has engaged in political activities and would modify the rules for registering certain foreign charitable organizations as donors.

It would amend the Seeds Act to potentially allow private contractors to perform food inspection.

It would also remove foreign ownership rules for wireless telecommunications companies with less than 10% market share, and would allow foreign-owned companies to grow beyond a 10% market share.

It is very interesting to note that the Conservatives claim that budget 2012 is about job creation, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer says that this budget would cost 43,000 Canadian jobs. In fact, the budget actually plans for unemployment to rise.

Bill C-38 would also gut workers' rights. As I indicated, it would repeal the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, which was created in the 1930s to set minimum standards for wages and hours of labour for construction workers engaged in projects funded by the federal government. In practice, removing these minimum standards would allow employers to undercut prevailing wage rates. How would making it difficult for workers to provide for their families help create jobs?

The bill would also amend the Employment Equity Act so that it no longer would apply to federal contractors. This is a direct attack on women, aboriginal peoples and visible minorities, as I said. Ten years ago, it was recommended that the employment equity provision for the federal worker contract program be strengthened through legislation. Instead, the government is deliberately weakening these provisions.

Bill C-38 targets immigrants with its proposed changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 2008, by allowing for a returning of the applications from federal skilled workers who applied to come to Canada before February 27, 2008. It would cause the fees of these workers to be refunded. What is not clear is how and who decides who gets pushed out of line and whether or not it will be voluntary. This is not a fair way to deal with the immigration backlog. Many of these applicants have already waited for years to have their applications considered.

The bill would also amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to give instructions establishing and governing classes of permanent residents as part of the economic class.

As I mentioned previously, Bill C-38 proposes changes to OAS by gradually raising the age of eligibility to retire from 65 to 67. While the Conservatives claim that this is necessary, the reality is that OAS is sustainable as it is and we can absolutely afford to ensure all seniors are free from poverty and live in dignity.

This is about making smart choices and intelligent practical investments. It makes much more sense to invest in people, our seniors, not in megaprisons, fighter jets and tax cuts to profitable corporations.

New Democrats fundamentally disagree with this proposed change to the age of retirement, and seniors do too. According to CARP, its members soundly reject raising the OAS eligibility age and see better ways to help younger Canadians, such as increasing job opportunities. CARP has been clear and is on the record stating:

The age of eligibility for OAS should not be increased from 65 to 67. If there is a need to relieve budgetary pressures, there are other options such as the potential savings from health care reform or the reduced military spending once the Afghan mission is complete. A fundamental change such as raising the OAS eligibility age should be fully debated especially given that the issue was not put before the voters and the implementation date is far enough away to allow for measured deliberations.

Unfortunately, the government is curtailing debate and attempting to silence those who do not agree with it.

CARP is not alone. The National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation argues that the government is not being honest about the ability to pay the OAS obligations. Several economists, internal finance department studies and even the Parliamentary Budget Officer all conclude that the existing OAS obligations are sustainable. The government's own figures prove that OAS is affordable now and in the future, because after 2030, the cost of OAS as a proportion of GDP will decline rapidly and significantly.

Tragically, in its efforts to sell this so-called OAS crisis, the feds have found some seductive words to try to persuade young workers and make them believe that making matters worse for them in retirement is somehow a fairness issue. Talk about the big lie. The current generation is not just being squeezed by income inequality, but will also face declining retirement security in their senior years.

Quality pension plans are under attack in both the public and private sectors. Only one-third of Canadian adults can afford RRSPs. The CPP is not being upgraded, despite the near consensus of provincial finance ministers just over a year ago that it was important to make pension improvements. Now the government is preparing to make negative changes to OAS for future retirees.

It does not have to be this way. Spending, taxation and other public policy decisions are always, in the end, political decisions.

I am convinced the people of this country do not believe the government is doing the right thing. They have been very clear that they do not wish to see the decline of our OAS.

How could a responsible government ever contemplate such a thing while recklessly proceeding with the purchase of non-tendered fighter jets and corporate tax cuts that continue to deny the country the needed revenue to finance our social programs? For the fifth year in a row, the government has given huge tax breaks that are tacked on to the public debt. It is the next generation that will pay the bills and be denied a decent pension. Some fairness.

It is not just me or seniors' organizations that see the problems here. Edward Whitehouse, leader of the OECD pension team, has clearly stated:

The analysis suggests that Canada does not face major challenges of financial sustainability with its public pension schemes....Long-term projections show that public retirement-income provision is financially sustainable. Population ageing will naturally increase public pension spending, but the rate of growth is lower and the starting point better than many OECD countries. Moreover, the earnings-related public schemes (CPP/QPP) have built up substantial reserves to meet these future liabilities.

We need to listen to this with clarity. It is pension expertise. It is also essential that we consider the people who will be hurt--

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-38, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act, legislation to implement key initiatives contained in the 2012 economic action plan.

When we introduced the first phase of this plan more than three years ago, the Canadian economy was threatened by a looming recession, begun beyond our borders, yet endangering our prosperity. Acting decisively, our Conservative government introduced temporary measures to fight the effects of the global recession through stimulus to safeguard jobs and protect the incomes of Canadians, while making important investments to ensure long-term growth.

Today the positive impact of our plans is abundantly clear, despite the misguided commentary we hear from the opposite side of the House. One should not take that opinion from me. Patricia Croft, former chief economist with RBC Global Asset Management, recently said, “In a global context, I think Canada is in a fabulous position. Canada continues to manage its fiscal affairs in a fabulous fashion”.

Thanks to our plan, our fiscal record is second to none. Although judging from their remarks throughout the debate on the bill, opposition members seem to be ignorant of these facts.

Both the IMF and the OECD have forecast that Canada will have among the strongest record of economic growth in the G7, both this year and next. Not only that, but for the fourth year in a row the World Economic Forum has rated Canada's banks as the most solvent in the world.

We all know that the prestigious Forbes magazine has ranked Canada number one in its annual review of the best countries in which to do business. The three major international credit rating agencies, Moody's, Fitch Ratings and Standard and Poor's have reaffirmed their top ratings for Canada.

I think it is clear to anyone who is listening that under our government's stewardship, Canada has weathered the economic storm with strength and the world has noticed.

This praise is not hollow. In truth, it speaks to the sound fiscal planning that has been the hallmark of this government. Our economic resilience reflects the actions our government took before the crisis, lowering taxes, paying down debt, reducing red tape and promoting free trade and innovation. I am proud the prudence continues to be reflected in action plan 2012 and in the measures contained in Bill C-38.

While my time is limited, I would like to speak specifically to our government's actions to ensure the retirement security of Canadians, as these measures reflect our commitment to fiscal planning that is sustainable well into the future.

This is of particular importance to my constituents in Okanagan—Shuswap, as we are the number two destination for Canadians to retire, and we actually have the largest number of seniors per capita in any place in Canada.

Since 2006, our government has taken steps to strengthen Canada's retirement income system, including increasing the guaranteed income supplement for the most vulnerable seniors, introducing pension income splitting, increasing the age credit and creating innovative savings vehicles like the tax-free savings account and co-registered pension plans.

Economic action plan 2012 takes further steps to ensure that Canadians will have access to a secure retirement for years to come by ensuring the sustainability of old age security and the guaranteed income supplement by gradually raising the age of eligibility from 65 to 67, starting in 2023.

The facts on OAS are clear. The OAS program was conceived at a time when Canadians were not living the long and healthy lives that we are today. We know with certainty that over the next 20 years the number of Canadians over the age of 65 will increase from 4.7 million to 9.3 million. Consequently, the cost of the OAS program will increase from $36 billion per year in 2010 to $108 billion per year by 2030. Meanwhile, by 2030, there will only be two taxpayers to support every senior, down from four to one in 2010.

We are not the first government in the world to recognize this inevitable demographic reality. Many countries are increasing the age of eligibility of their public pension programs. Of 34 OECD countries, 22 have recently increased, or announced plans to increase, the eligibility age. It is a long list that includes: Australia, Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and United States.

This change in Canada does not start tomorrow. It would start in April 2023, with full implementation by January 2029. That is a 17-year notification period and, as such, it would not affect anyone who is 54 years of age or older as of March 31, 2012.

There is no question that this is the right move to ensure that our generous system of retirement benefits is there for Canadians when they need it most. Just listen to the words of the Globe and Mail editorial board, speaking directly to the measures contained in the bill that the opposition is voting against. It said, in part:

The two-year deferral of the Old Age Security for those now below the age of 54 is a fair and reasonable adaptation to an era of greater longevity and mostly prolonged health... Likewise, the reform of public-sector pensions, by higher employee contributions and a normal retirement age, will before long greatly relieve strains on the public purse....[The Prime Minister] and [the Minister of Finance] can, and do, truthfully say that the federal government’s finances are on track....Ottawa’s books of account are headed in the right direction. This is why the Conservatives were elected, to prudently manage public finances in a tumultuous time.

Canadians have told us that as they live longer and healthier lives, many older workers wish to remain in the workforce and increase their retirement income. Our changes to the OAS program reflect this new reality, while assuring that the OAS program is on a sustainable path.

To this end, we are also improving the amount of flexibility and choice Canadians can exercise by allowing the option of deferring the take-up of their OAS benefits to a later time. This way, should Canadians wish to work and save a little longer, they will receive higher annual benefits when they eventually collect their pension.

This too has received support from the strongest voice of Canada's small business community. The Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses has said, “[we are] supportive of the idea that Canadians should be incented to work longer by receiving additional OAS if they push back their retirement”.

Further, we are working to provide increased support to the retirement income system with pooled registered pension plans. These will provide an accessible large-scale and low-cost pension option to employers, employees and the self-employed.

Not only that, we will continue to deliver on promises to Canadians to keep taxes low and return to a balanced budget over the medium term.