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.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

As members are aware, the chair does not ordinarily provide an explanation on the basis for the report stage ruling. In cases where there are a large number of amendments or where the relations among them are complex, it has been found helpful to provide some description of the underlying organization of the ruling. I believe that the case before us today is one in which the House may benefit from some comments in this regard.

I remind the House that my comments are limited to addressing procedural issues relating to report stage and to my responsibility as Speaker to ensure that the relevant provisions contained in the Standing Orders are complied with.

On February 27, 2001, the House adopted a motion to add an additional paragraph to the “note” to Standing Order 76(5) and 76.1(5). That additional final paragraph added to the note reads as follows:

For greater clarity, the Speaker will not select for debate a motion or series of motions of a repetitive, frivolous or vexatious nature or of a nature that would serve merely to prolong unnecessarily proceedings at the report stage and, in exercising this power of selection, the Speaker shall be guided by the practice followed in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom.

As mentioned in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at page 778, “This occurred in response to the flooding of the Notice Paper with hundreds of amendments”.

Following the adoption of this new note in the Standing Orders, Speaker Milliken made a statement, Debates, March 21, 2001, pages 1991 to 1993, regarding how the Chair would interpret this note which has formed the basis of our current practice with regards to the selection of motions at report stage. If I may add, this process appears to have effectively served the House since that time.

Given the infrequency with which similar cases to those that led to the introduction of the note have arisen in the past decade, the Speaker has little in the way of precedent to guide him in arranging the report stage motions in a manner which will adequately reflect the various competing interests in the House.

In reviewing the motions placed before the House, there are essentially two types of motions the Chair has received. First, hundreds of motions to delete individual clauses in the bill have been placed on notice as well as a second group of amendments which seek to amend the text of a clause.

The recent precedents in relation to both types of motions are clear. For example, motions to delete clauses have always been found to be in order and it must also be noted have been selected at report stage. These motions are allowed at report stage because members may wish to express views on a clause without seeking to amend it. As is the case on such occasions, I have tried to minimize the amount of time spent in the House on this kind of motion by grouping them as tightly as possible and by applying the vote on one to as many others as possible.

The second group of motions, which seek to amend the text of individual clauses, have been submitted by members who had no opportunity to present amendments at committee stage and, consistent with the current practice, their motions have also been selected, except in the case where similar motions had already been considered by the committee and where all other procedural requirements have been met. The grouping of these motions follows the divisions of the bill. Motions have been grouped by the members submitting them for each clause of the bill. The vote on the first motion will be applied to the member's other motions in that class.

Although 871 motions have been placed on the notice paper, it is clearly not intended, nor do our rules and practices lend themselves to the taking of 871 consecutive votes. With respect to the voting table, substantive amendments have been grouped so as to allow for a clear expression of opinion on each of the subject areas contained in the bill. Motions to delete have been dealt with in conformity with the grouping scheme outlined above.

As your Speaker, I am fully aware of the extraordinary nature of the current situation. In reviewing the March 2001 statement by then Speaker Milliken, I was struck by the following, which I feel might have some resonance today:

As your Speaker, I am ready to shoulder the report stage responsibilities that the House has spelled out for me. However, I think it would be naive to hope that the frustrations implicit in the putting on notice of hundreds of motions in amendment of a bill will somehow be answered by bringing greater rigour to the Speaker's process of selection.

Since the decision of the House on February 27, 2001 to add the final paragraph to the note in the Standing Orders regarding report stage, there are few precedents to guide the Speaker in dealing with this type of situation. In my selection of motions, in their grouping and in the organization of the votes, I have made every effort to respect both the wishes of the House and my responsibility to organize the consideration of report stage motions in a fair and balanced manner. To the extent that some may have differing views concerning the decisions taken, it may be that the House or perhaps the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs will wish to revisit the adequacy of our rules and practices in dealing with cases of this extraordinary nature.

There are 871 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of C-38.

The Chair will not select Motions Nos. 570, 571, 576, 626 to 628, 630, 842 and 843, since they require a royal recommendation. The Chair will not select Motions Nos. 411 and 412, because they were defeated in committee.

Motions Nos. 27, 29, 39, 55 to 61, 71, 73, 75, 83, 85 and 545 will not be selected by the Chair as they would introduce inconsistencies.

All remaining motions have been examined and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at the report stage.

The motions will be grouped for debate as follows:

Group No. 1, Motions Nos. 1 to 15.

Group No. 2, Motions Nos. 16 to 23.

Group No. 3, Motions Nos. 24 to 26, 28, 30 to 38, 40 to 54, 62 to 70, 72, 74, 76 to 82, 84 and 86 to 367.

Group No. 4, Motions Nos. 368 to 410, 413 to 544, 546 to 569, 572 to 575, 577 to 625, 629, 631 to 841 and 844 to 871.

The voting patterns for the motions within each group are available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each pattern at the time of voting.

I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1 to 15 in Group No. 1 to the House.

Motions in Amendment

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

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 1.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 2.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 4.

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 6.

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

moved:

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 7.

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

seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved:

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-38, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 5 on page 7 with the following:

““political activity” means the making of a gift by a donor to a qualified donee for the purpose of allowing the donor to maintain a level of funding of political activities that is less than 10% of its income for a taxation year by delegating the carrying out of political activities to the qualified donee;”

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-38, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 8 with the following:

“interest, being any activity that contributes to the social or cultural lives of Canadians or that contributes to Canada's economic or ecological well-being.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 8.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 9.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 10.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 11.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 13.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 16.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-38, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 14 with the following:

“on January 1, 2013 a salary of $137,000.”

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 17.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are now at the report stage. I am very sad to say that the Government of Canada has been totally deaf to our entreaties to reconsider its outrageously anti-democratic approach to the budget implementation bill, an approach which will have profound implications for our country. Simply stated, the Conservative government has said to Canadians, “This is how we do things and that is the way it is going to be”. It brings to mind the schoolyard bully who never felt the need to explain his actions but just went ahead and did what he wanted to do.

However, I have news for the government. Canadians do not like it and they are waking up to the way the government is doing things. Who would have thought that Canadians would be familiar with procedures such as prorogation or time allocation during debates or the use of in camera in committees? Slowly but surely, Canadians are beginning to understand these procedures and beginning to question what the government meant when it promised, six and a half years ago, to be open, transparent and, most of all, accountable. I believe Canadians are beginning to feel that there is a contradiction between what has been promised and what is actually being done by the government.

It has come to this. All the opposition parties have been asking the government from the start to split the enormous, 425-page Bill C-38. That way, the changes that are not directly or even indirectly related to the budget but that will have significant consequences on our country could be addressed separately.

I am talking about the changes that affect the way we assess the environmental risks associated with developing our natural resources. I am talking about changes to the Fisheries Act, which will put endangered species at greater risk of extinction. I am also talking about changes to the criteria for old age security, or the OAS eligibility age, which will go from 65 to 67 as of 2023.

In our analysis, we found that this change is not necessary and that the Canadian economy has the means to allow Canadians to receive old age security at 65. In any event, is this change proposed by the government so urgent for the economy that we need to include it in this budget bill? Why does this change not merit its own bill?

The same can be said about the unprecedented changes to employment insurance, which could result in significant changes in the regions, especially those where seasonal employment is the norm. These are unprecedented changes and the federal government has not even taken the time to consult the provinces, which could be hard hit by a decline in population or an increase in requests for social assistance.

In all, more than 60 pieces of legislation would be modified, created or deleted by Bill C-38. The government's only argument for charging ahead is that the economy is fragile and it cannot wait. This is, of course, preposterous since many of the changes in the bill are not remotely time critical or, in many cases, even related to what we would expect in a budget implementation plan. Old age security changes would be 11 years away. Why do the Conservatives think they can behave this way? And will somebody in the government explain to me why Canada's economic stability is critically dependent on changes to the Fisheries Act being implemented immediately?

We live in a democracy. In democracies, even those with majority governments, there is a proper way to enact legislation and it is not by cramming a very large number of pieces of legislation into a single bill.

I would like to repeat an important point. Not only should Bill C-38 be split into several bills dealing with the environment, fisheries, employment insurance and old age security, among other things, but a government committed to working with the provinces would have consulted them before going ahead with Bill C-38, a bill that will definitely affect the provinces.

Unfortunately, this government ignores everyone and consults no one. This was the case recently with the premiers of the Atlantic provinces on the issue of employment insurance and with the National Assembly last Friday, which once again voted unanimously on changes to employment insurance.

We in the Liberal Party knew from the beginning that the government would not suddenly become reasonable. It is simply not its style. We knew that its members would charge blindly ahead with no intention to listen to reason or to compromise and damn the torpedoes. For that reason we decided that in addition to speaking out loudly and clearly about the government's abuse of democracy, we needed also to maximize the effectiveness of our procedural tactics. If I may say, here the Liberals have quite a bit of experience. We did try to propose substantive amendments to Bill C-38 in committee, but they were rejected. The government simply refused to listen. The result is that we introduced 503 report stage amendments to delete clauses that we felt were unacceptable to this bill.

In addition to this, we worked closely with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and told her we would support any substantive amendments that she proposed and with which we agreed.

I recognize that the Conservative government has the majority of seats in the House of Commons. I respect that reality. Ultimately, that allows it to do what it wishes. However, that does not mean that ignoring the arguments raised by opposition parties is the smart way to behave, given that opposition parties sometimes propose sensible amendments to government bills. In fact, one might argue that a smart majority government will occasionally listen to the opposition parties and sometimes put a little water in its wine. That is a smart move. It is viewed not so much as a concession or a surrender, but more as a willingness to work together, something Canadians admire and expect from their politicians. So far, this has not happened, but it is not too late.

If this government is willing to listen and make compromises, we could work together in the interest of Canadians.

My party is prepared to vote right now on the parts of Bill C-38 that are related to the budget, but the clauses in Bill C-38 that have no direct bearing on the budget should be removed. The government should not be trying to hide important changes to Canada's legislation in this bill.

The Prime Minister did not raise the issue of changing the age of old age security in the last election. He did not talk about overhauling the environmental assessment regulations and legislation or the Fisheries Act. He never mentioned important changes that were coming for employment insurance. These require fulsome debate as well as consultation with the provinces.

I close by appealing to the government to listen to reason. At the end of the day, it can get a great majority of what it wants. However, what it needs to remember is that Canadians will judge it by the way it goes about it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand that seasonal industries are an incredibly important part of the economy, not just of Atlantic Canada but right across this country from coast to coast. The changes buried within this budget bill would have a significant impact on access to labour for those people who run businesses in seasonal industries, such as forestry, tourism, agriculture, the fishery and construction. We have heard right across this country that the end result would be a depleted pool of skilled labour for those industries.

I am wondering if my colleague could comment on this. There is a total lack of consultation. If there was a bit of consultation, might we be able to avert the negative impact it would have on those seasonal industries?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the changes to EI being proposed in the budget implementation plan, which were suddenly inserted at the very last minute and for which there was very little detail, which we had to push the government to provide, would have a profound impact on certain parts of this country, particularly for those where employment is seasonal.

At the very least, this extremely complex question, which could result in the depopulation of certain areas and could be a greater burden on the provinces with respect to paying welfare, would have a profound transformational effect and, frankly, simply looks like a policy designed to pull people away from certain regions so that they go to other areas where there is a need for labour. This kind of profound change requires consultation, not only in this House of Commons where we should have had a fulsome debate as a separate bill, but more primarily with the provinces.

We heard the four Atlantic provincial premiers express their concerns. We heard l'Assemblée nationale du Québec last week unanimously vote against these EI changes. That really was a statement more about the fact that they were not being consulted.

Yes, this would have profound ramifications for Canada. The government should have consulted.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions for my colleague.

Is the hon. member aware that the last three budget implementation acts in the last three years have been larger? Is he aware that there has been more study on this legislation than on any bill in 20 years? Is he also aware that there is an excellent summary at the very start of this legislation that talks about each change?

I think members can actually look at the changes and if something perks their interest they can look at the details.

Would the member not agree that our government is behaving very responsibly, as compared to the Liberal government of the 1990s? We have committed within this budget to maintain health care transfers to the provinces at record levels and have made a long-term commitment, as opposed to the Liberal cuts, to health care, which impacted the provinces in a significant way.

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

Mr. Speaker, if one looks at the length of budget implementation bills, one gets a very misleading picture of the situation. It is the breadth of what it entails. Even if one looks at the length and at the last 22 budget implementation bills, on average, the Conservatives' implementation bills are three times longer. I have done the math, and that is the situation.

I want to get back to the breadth of the bill. The breadth of this bill is staggering and cannot remotely be linked to important budgetary changes that need to be done at this time to protect a fragile recovery. The point here is the breadth of the bill. It touches 70 acts of Parliament, either deleting them, modifying them or in some cases creating new ones.

One clause, clause 52, would create an environmental assessment act, 2012, for Canada, and runs for 30 pages. That is what we are concerned about here today, not the length of the document.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, over the past few weeks, parliamentarians have been invited to look into the massive so-called “budget bill”, and, as we have been saying for weeks now, this bill is a real Trojan Horse.

It has all sorts of provisions that will have an impact on everything, from old age security, food inspection and healthcare transfers right through to immigration. Of course, one third of this Trojan Horse bill includes significant changes to environmental protection regulations.

In short, this bill repeals the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act and, as a result, cancels all international accountability measures on climate change. Briefly once again, this bill repeals the current Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and, as a result, allows the Conservatives to considerably weaken the assessment system. So, in a nutshell, this bill dismantles the measures that were implemented to protect our environment and turns its back on climate change.

Just imagine what the rest of this bill contains. It is over 400 pages long and amends 60 different pieces of legislation, rescinding half a dozen and adding three, including a complete overhaul of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

I want to stress that the short title of the bill, “jobs, growth and long-term prosperity”, does not reflect its content. First, much of the bill has nothing to do with the budget and, second, the bill is about austerity. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed that public sector job cuts will be in the order of 26,800 over the next three years. In addition, about 6,000 contract positions are being cut. The government has refused to detail where many of these cuts will be made, but many of the services and programs that Canadians rely upon will be diminished or eliminated.

It also seems clear that, since our economic recovery has stalled and in the face of global economic uncertainty, the last thing we need are further cutbacks, which will be a further drag on the overall economy.

Have we gained new jobs from the very depths of the economic downturn in 2008-09? Yes, of course. However, since the employment rate fell dramatically by 2.5% of the working age population at that time, it has only rebounded by 0.6%. Only about one-fifth of the labour market damage from the recession has been repaired. Between one in four or one in three net new jobs created in Canada from the end of 2007 to the end of 2011 went to temporary foreign workers. We have still not recovered from the lost jobs and we have not kept up with population growth.

However, the changes in the bill to employment insurance, rather than helping Canadian families adjust to a chronic shortage of jobs in most parts of the country, seem designed to compel them to abandon their skills in a rush to take any job at all. What a waste of skills at a time when Canada needs vision and leadership to help us transition to a more modern and environmentally sustainable economy.

We have somewhat succeeded in opening the debate. The minister finally clarified, in a way, what she has in store for employment insurance, but that cannot replace the normal democratic process.

Even though the Prime Minister has expressed opposition to omnibus bills in the past, the Conservatives do not seem too concerned about them today, but this bill is different. For many of the measures proposed, this is the first time we are hearing about them being in the bill. However, despite the bill's scope, the government is determined to pass it as quickly as possible, without consulting Canadians and their members of Parliament, and without having the bill carefully examined by experts and other stakeholders.

Conservative commentator, Andrew Coyne, wrote in the National Post:

Not only does this make a mockery of the confidence convention, shielding bills that would otherwise be defeatable within a money bill, which is not: It makes it impossible to know what Parliament really intended by any of it. We’ve no idea whether MPs supported or opposed any particular bill in the bunch, only that they voted for the legislation that contained them. There is no common thread that runs between them, no overarching principle; they represent not a single act of policy, but a sort of compulsory buffet.

But there is something quite alarming about Parliament being obliged to rubber-stamp the government’s whole legislative agenda at one go.

That was said by a Conservative commentator, and I could not agree more.

The Conservatives' approach is very worrisome. The official opposition has tried to work with the government to split the bill and allow the various measures to be debated more substantively and studied more carefully within the proper committees. The Conservatives refused.

We have asked for enough time to study the bill within the Standing Committee on Finance. The Conservatives gave us only four minutes per clause. And they refused to give us more time when witnesses representing both sides were unable to attend the meetings, whose schedule was strictly controlled by the Conservatives. This reduced the time for debate even more.

The finance subcommittee set up to study part 3 of the bill had just 12 hours to hear from witnesses on a wide variety of changes to environmental regulation and changes impacting our fisheries and species at risk, including an entirely rewritten environmental assessment act. Our colleagues on the subcommittee reported that hearings were often rushed, often interrupted, that consultation was extremely limited and that a lack of opportunity to draw on the expertise of the standing committees on environment, fisheries and natural resources prevented a proper and robust evaluation of the proposals in the bill.

I regret to say that our experience in the finance committee was much the same. The extremely tight timeline made it impossible for several witnesses to appear, which significantly cut down on our hearing time. Some witnesses, who did appear but did not support the government's position, often had their testimony dismissed. One economist had his work dismissed as garbage, and Paul Kennedy, who spent 20 years in the area of national security and who served as a senior assistant to the deputy minister of public safety, had his testimony dismissed as simply wrong. His error: he voiced concern over the impact of the elimination of the position of the Inspector General of CSIS.

Canadians have every right to expect that their government will listen to the public. The New Democrats were listening, both at committee and at public hearings across the county. We heard from Dr. Haggie, of the Canadian Medical Association, who warned that raising the age of eligibility for old age security was certain to have a negative impact. He emphasized that gnawing away at Canada's social safety net would no doubt force hard choices on some of tomorrow's seniors. The choice between whether to buy groceries or buy their medicine will, in the end, put a greater burden on our health care system.

We heard from a number of experts who warned that the proposed changes to employment insurance would contribute to a low-wage policy by forcing people to take significant pay cuts or be cut off from the benefits they paid into. One, Professor Marjorie Griffin Cohen, said:

Going from making $14 or $15 an hour to making $10.25, the minimum wage, makes a very huge difference for women. We see that this legislation will contribute to a low-wage policy, and already the vast majority of low-wage workers are women, so these policies will affect them. I would like the committee to understand that.

Last fall, I spoke with one of my constituents who came to Ottawa to protest peacefully on Parliament Hill against the government's inaction on climate change. She is in her sixties and had never participated in civil disobedience or been arrested, but she felt so strongly that Canada was going down the wrong path and that the government was not listening, she felt she had to do something, so she travelled to Ottawa to make her voice heard. This person is not a radical. Is it radical to believe that government policy should involve public debate. In a democracy, this should be commonplace but the Conservatives are determined to shut down debate.

We have fought tooth and nail every step of the way to have debate on the bill. We will continue to do so. That is why we brought witnesses forward to the finance committee and subcommittee. That is why we held hearings across the country. We are trying to make it clear that we do not want the government to balance its books on the backs of seniors and to make clear that massive changes to EI should only come after a substantive debate.

We want to provide an opportunity for all Canadians to have their voices heard on this important bill which would have very real impacts on them now and on generations forward.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know how hard my colleague from Parkdale—High Park works and how hard other members of the NDP as well as all opposition parties have worked on the bill at committee. They diligently and in total good faith tried to find a way to split the bill to ensure there would be overall examination.

Even yesterday, coming back from my riding, people were drawing to my attention various things in the bill that are still being discovered. There is still very little known about the changes.

One of the particular concerns I have is the change to the health care funding formula. As we know, the Conservatives unilaterally changed the health care funding formula to the provinces. This will have a huge impact on health care in the future in Canada. I wonder if the member could comment on that because I know it is an aspect of the bill that probably has not had the in-depth review and coverage that it needs to have, which is precisely why we needed to have much further examination of the bill.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right that in this massive omnibus bill of 753 clauses, one small part of it attempts to lock in the take-it-or-leave-it offer from the government to the provinces for the future of health care funding.

There will be increases to funding going forward, but over time they will continue to be less than the cost of inflation, less than growth, less than population growth. What we are going to see over time is like a noose around the neck of the provinces that will gradually squeeze them on health care costs.

Canadians are going to see the impact of this on their health care services. Will there be more privatization? Will more services be cut?

We think that this is a very dangerous step forward, and it has been done with a take-it-or-leave-it offer rather than through a collaborative approach of working with the provinces that deliver health care.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate now for quite some time. What escapes my understanding is that this budget was tabled in the House in March, close to three months ago. I have just checked with the parliamentary secretary to my right, and the committee and subcommittee have held over 70 hours of meetings and have had over 100 witnesses come in front of committee. All I hear from the opposition is “process, process, process”.

The opposition members do not actually talk about what is in the budget, and that is the most important part. When Canadians look overseas and see what is happening in Europe, Spain, Greece and other countries, they are worried about jobs and the economy, and what is going to make our economy stronger is contained within the budget.

What do we not hear from the opposition? We do not hear what is actually in the budget to strengthen our economy.

Enough with the process. I would like the opposition members to talk about what is in the budget and how it will move Canada forward in terms of strengthening its economy.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there we have it. Suddenly democracy, this House and the public debate are dismissed as “process”.

I have to say how profoundly offensive that is, because we have, for example, changes that will result in people being in poverty or being forced onto welfare, and we have not had open discussion and debate. The government did not even talk to the Atlantic premiers before tabling these changes on EI, changes that will have a drastic impact on seasonal workers in those provinces.

To dismiss this as “process”, to me, is profoundly offensive. Democracy is what this House is about. It is not just about process. It is about what we do here and why we are elected.

I am proud to stand with my NDP colleagues and I will defend democracy. I will defend open debate. I defy any member of the Conservative Party to say otherwise, to say that we should not be defending democracy, parliamentary debate and open hearings with Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak at report stage on Bill C-38, a bill that many other colleagues in the House have accurately described as an affront to democracy.

I heard my hon. colleague say that somehow we, in the opposition benches, should speak to the content of the bill. I propose to do so, but I also must point out that it is the appropriate role of the Parliament of Canada to review legislation. It is not a mere process that gets in the way of the grand aims of the particular Conservative who is ruling Privy Council. The role of Parliament is, at its essence, to review legislation.

In this case we have before us a bill of over 420 pages repealing, amending and changing over 70 different laws. We now have before us hundreds of amendments grouped into 159 votes, but we know that this legislation will not receive adequate review.

I am going to direct my comments to those aspects of part 3 that are changed in Bill C-38, but I note that my amendments cover things that are changed in part 1 under the Income Tax Act, changed roles that are important, for instance, for the various agencies that are being ended, such as the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, which does not end up in part 3, which is generally reviewed as the environmental changes that are hidden within Bill C-38.

There are many changes within this legislation that will have long-term, serious and negative repercussions for Canada, for Canada's society and, yes, for Canada's economy. It is a false piece of rhetoric.

We have to beware. I do not like to be Biblical very often, but let us beware of the wages of spin. We are told a lot of spin in the House all the time, told that this is going to bring great jobs and prosperity. By asserting our rights to examine Bill C-38, we are not threatening the economy; we are trying to protect the integrity of Canadian institutions and our ability to forge policies that protect the environment and develop our resources at the same time.

In that light, I want to turn to some of the evidence we heard. I was not a member of the subcommittee on finance, but at its essence the repeal of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is appalling. It has served Canada since 1993 and was working well up until these amendments, according to industry sources I have already cited in this House. We will repeal, under Bill C-38, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and we will see a whole new act in its place.

That new act, on the basis of expert evidence to the subcommittee on finance, will not work well. It will not work well for proponents who want to build projects. It will not work well for Canadians, who have an interest in the proceedings and wish to come forward to present their concerns. It will definitely not work well in respect to first nations and their inherent and treaty rights, which the federal government has an obligation, a fiduciary duty, to respect, as numerous court decisions make clear. As well, It will not work well for industry.

We have an entirely new scheme of legislation put forward without adequate review. We have had less than 14 hours of hearings, combined, on the changes to the Environmental Assessment Act, the Fisheries Act, the Species at Risk Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act. I do not blame those in the legal departments who drafted this bill, clearly without adequate time and without adequate preparation. The drafters of Bill C-38 have taken a sledgehammer to environmental law and policy that have served this country well for decades, and that sledgehammer approach has left environmental law and policy in ruins.

I hope the Conservative members of Parliament will examine and consider voting in support of the amendments I have put forward today in order to make Bill C-38 serve the purpose they themselves say they want: to protect the environment while pursuing economic development.

In specific cases, the proposed co-called Canadian Assessment Act 2012 fails to define what environmental screening is. It fails to describe what an environmental assessment is. The Conservatives have done so much damage to the scheme of the legislation that they have created new chasms of uncertainty. Anyone who is about to do a project will not be able to tell from reading the new so-called CEAA 2012 what it will cover and what it will not cover.

I have heard the hon. members for Wellington—Halton Hills and Dufferin—Caledon call numerous times on the floor of the House for a federal review of the appalling megaquarry proposed for Melancthon Township, and I applaud them for doing so. However, if Bill C-38 passes, we should watch out. We would not want a federal review. That is the last thing we would want, because the only thing the environmental assessment panel would be able to examine would be the effect of the megaquarry on fish, marine plants and migratory birds.

The essence of the threat posed by the megaquarry is to the water table, to the surrounding farms and to the fertility of the soil, which is absolutely world-beating. No one can grow better potatoes than they do in the soils of that area of Melancthon County, yet if that megaquarry had a federal assessment, it would be restricted to looking at the impact on migratory birds and fish. It has the effect of a sledgehammer.

The witness I want to mention, whose testimony people can read in Hansard, is Stephen Hazell. He worked as a member of the legal staff of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and said exactly this: that this change will lead to greater uncertainty, more economic losses and mistakes that will cost us well into the future.

The same point was made by National Chief Shawn Atleo with the Assembly of First Nations. These changes will lead, in his words, to greater conflict, greater uncertainty, conflicts in the courts and conflicts in terms of direct action. If we are interested in democratic processes that respect all parts of society, this is not the way we want to go when we embark on large new projects.

The other pieces I must speak to in the limited time I have are my amendments, which attempt to repair the damage done by the sledgehammer to the Fisheries Act, particularly subsection 35(1). I know that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, in addressing the House numerous times, has claimed that the municipalities of Canada were clamouring for these changes so that when they installed various municipal works, they would not have to worry about whether there was a habitat for fish in the vicinity. That claim is belied by the vote last weekend in Saskatoon, when the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, representing hundreds of municipalities, passed a resolution on an emergency basis calling upon the Prime Minister to stop, rethink this and remove the Fisheries Act changes.

In the same tone, we have the words of four former fisheries ministers. I can mention their names in this place because they no longer sit among us. They are fine and honourable public servants. They are former fisheries minister Hon. Tom Siddon, the Hon. John Fraser, Hon. Herb Dhaliwal and Hon. David Anderson.

It is not just by chance that I stand here as the only leader of a federal political party from British Columbia. I note that those four former fisheries ministers all hail from British Columbia, where people understand that wild salmon are as important to British Columbians as the French language is to Quebeckers. It is part of who we are as British Columbians to defend our salmon when there could be changes that would allow the wholesale destruction of fish habitat that supports the sockeye, the endangered wild salmon runs and the coho. Why would we make changes in this place that would do such damage to the linchpin of environmental protection in Canada?

Subsection 35(1) of the Fisheries Act does not protect just a few fish. It is a fundamental piece of legislation and is part of federal jurisdiction in the Constitution that leads to the protection of fresh water. It leads to the protection of grizzly habitat, of forests and of ecosystems. Without subsection 35(1) of the Fisheries Act remaining intact, we open up the gangway to reckless destruction not only of our extraordinary natural resources but of nature itself.

We are constantly being told that we have a false choice, that we have to choose hell-bent-for-leather economic development with no attention to what it means to first nations rights and sustainability of natural capital. As I mentioned in the House before, we are told that the planet is a business in liquidation, and everything must go as quickly as possible.

I beg my Conservative colleagues in this place to reflect on the voices of their former colleagues, people like the former member of Parliament for Red Deer, Bob Mills, who pleaded that we keep the national round table, and people like the former fisheries ministers and scientists right across Canada. Report stage is the time to rescue Bill C-38 from being a bill that destroys the environment over the long term to one that respects it.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for her passionate plea. However, I would like to say on behalf of the government that this is not something that was put together at the last moment. This is something we have been working on for many years, so I would hope the member would take much of that into consideration.

However, I do have a couple of questions for my hon. colleague. First and foremost, she spoke at length about many of the environmental assessment measures, et cetera, but I am interested in knowing, on behalf of her riding, how she feels about the integrated cross-border law enforcement operations act. It is important to her riding. Her constituents are waiting to hear from her on this measure. Therefore, I would like her to address it. So far, it has been very well received from all the stakeholders.

The last question I would have for her is this. Is she considering a run for the Liberal leadership given that its members seem to have found their sea legs under her guidance and leadership? I am just curious to know if she has considered it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I remind my hon. colleague across the way that this kind of approach, making these numerous changes under cover of a budget implementation bill, were once called by her own leader a backdoor way and a dangerous way of proceeding and would certainly not have the support of his party of the day. That was the current Prime Minister speaking in 1994.

I will say to all colleagues, and I know I have limited time for an answer, that I am grateful for the support of the Liberal Party for my motions. I do not for one minute suggest that I will be anything other than the leader of the Green Party of Canada, serving the interests of the voters of Saanich—Gulf Islands, and I believe that the so-called free rider provisions are an intrusion on Canadian sovereignty that should not be allowed.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her speech in defence of democracy and the environment.

It was interesting to hear the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance saying that the government had been working on these ideas for destroying environmental protections for years. I wonder whether you could comment on the timing and urgency now, because it seems to me that part of what this omnibus bill does is facilitate pipelines across northern British Columbia by removing the necessity of environmental assessments? Perhaps you could comment on whether you think the timing of this bill, since the Conservatives have been working on it for years, has some connection to pipelines?

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order. Before I go to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, I would like to remind all members to direct their comments and questions to the Chair rather than to their colleagues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was also surprised to hear the parliamentary secretary say the Conservatives have been working on these measures for years. Perhaps it was in some back room or some shadowy part of the House of Commons, but certainly not before committee and certainly not in any public, transparent or accountable fashion.

Of course, we became aware of the threat to the fisheries habitat through a leaked memo. Having had an alert from a former fisheries' biologist within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Otto Langer, whose concerns were reported in the media, I read the budget very carefully on March 29, in case there was anything there about proposed changes to section 35(1) of the Fisheries Act. It is not mentioned at all in the budget and is not part of a budgetary measure.

In answer to my friend, when we are looking at Bill C-38, I believe that many of the changes could have been written from within the corporate boardrooms of the oil industry, perhaps in Beijing as well as in Canada.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her speech and pick up on the theme that was raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

If indeed the government has been working on these changes for years, I am wondering if the member could help us understand why it is that just recently the government dispatched 10 senior cabinet ministers around the country to try to convince Canadians that the environmental assessment process would be capped to two years, only to then have to admit that in fact, when a project proponent delays, the two-year timeline no longer applies.

Maybe the member could help us understand, for example, how that applied in the case of Imperial Oil in the Northwest Territories.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has put the case very well. I will just say that most of the delays we have seen take place in the past, for instance, on large projects such as the review of the Mackenzie gas pipeline, were directly due to the proponent not being ready, and that has created delays.

A lot of us would like to see certainty around reviews, but we want to make sure the proponent cannot rag the puck so long that the process gets delayed and then those interested parties, and in a different category particularly, the first nations interested parties, have to rush to catch up with their analyses when the proponent is responsible for the delay.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before talking about the clause I am asking to be deleted, I would like to congratulate the leader of the Green Party on the excellent speech she has just made. The Bloc Québécois joins in her argument and is entirely in agreement with her demands regarding this Bill C-38.

Clause 16, the elimination of which I am calling for in the amendment I am proposing, concerns the Governor General. It is unreasonable for the Governor General’s salary to be doubled. About a month and a half ago, I introduced a motion in this House after discovering that the Governor General did not pay income tax. It is unreasonable for him to be the only person in Canada who pays no income tax, when the Queen of England pays tax, as do the governors general in the other Commonwealth countries.

The government agreed with my argument in the last budget: it decided to have him pay income tax. The great injustice is that it decided to double his salary because he is going to be paying income tax. I know of no one in this country, no working person, no member of the general public, who is getting their salary doubled all at once overnight. The government’s argument is that it is going to double the Governor General’s salary because he will be starting to pay income tax like all Canadians. That is absolutely ridiculous. His salary was $137,000 and it is going up to $270,000. The net salary will therefore be higher; that is unreasonable. His pension will also be higher.

The purpose of my motion was to remedy an injustice. Not only is it not being remedied, but a flagrant injustice is being created toward all members of the public, in both Quebec and Canada. Are there working people whose salaries have gone up by 100% in the last year? The government is making cuts everywhere: for seniors, unemployed workers and not-for-profit organizations. Would this not be an excellent opportunity for the government to put an end to this monarchy madness? However, doubling the Governor General’s salary because he will be paying income tax in future is not the way to do it.

Note that the Governor General receives a pension equal to 100% of his salary after spending only five years in office. Is there any citizen or worker in Canada who receives that benefit? On average, Canadians work 35 years for a pension of approximately 75% of their salary. Note as well that this is merely an honorary position held for five years. During that term, the Governor General is clothed, transported, housed and fed. He enjoys unlimited international travel and then leaves office with a pension equal to 100% of his salary. He also has 160 people in his service and an annual budget of more than $60 million in cooperation with six departments.

Let us consider the cost of the Senate. It comprises 104 senators and costs $45 million, including staff and everything else. The House of Commons costs approximately $200 million. And it will cost $60 million for this person alone. Is it normal to attach so much importance to this position? I do not believe so.

This would be a good opportunity for the government to require the Governor General to pay income tax on the same salary, to put an end to this monarchy madness in which it has been engaging since the start of the year, and to consider the will of Quebecers and Canadians.

In fact, 80% of Quebeckers and 50% of Canadians in the other provinces would like to sever ties with the monarchy.

I repeat: only 16 Commonwealth countries have maintained this link to the monarchy. It is time this government listened to the population. The Governor General must pay income tax; that is fine, but does it mean that we have to increase his salary by 100%? That is utterly ridiculous.

I do not believe the monarchy is equal to or synonymous with democracy—quite the contrary.

I am going to conclude by saying that, in addition to clause 6 of Bill C-38, which is completely unfair, we also disagree with a number of other provisions. This legislation affects 60 departments. For example, seniors will have to wait two additional years to receive their old age pensions. The changes to employment insurance were made without any consultation, without taking into account the reality of the regions.

The Bank Act is unfair to Quebec. The minister responsible, the federalist Liberal Quebec minister, is preparing to go before the courts. This will be the third or fourth time that the Quebec government has taken such action against this government. It is unacceptable for the federal government to be solely responsible for the Bank Act. It violates Quebec's Public Protector Act. As of 2016, health transfers will be reduced, but there have been no consultations on this.

So, many measures were decided in haste, with few if any consultations, and are being imposed in a 460-page document. That is unusual. It is not normal. That way of doing things is unprecedented. It completely contradicts the spirit of British parliamentarianism which, after all, is one of the noblest forms of parliament among the major democracies. However, we must take the time to debate issues.

In conclusion, I hope that clause 16 will be abolished, or at least amended so that the Governor General's salary remains the same when, in 2013, he begins paying taxes just like every other Canadian.

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech, which sums up the Bloc Québécois's position on Bill C-38 very well.

I also want to ask him about his views on the proposed employment insurance reform. This reform is a direct attack on the regions, because it does not take into consideration the reality of seasonal workers in the forestry, tourism, fishery or agriculture sectors. The approach ignores the way the regional economy is structured. The bill attacks the regions by forcing workers to relocate over an hour away from their homes, and by forcing them to accept much lower wages, somewhere around 70% of their of their previous income.

I wonder if my colleague could elaborate on this issue.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

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

During a press conference, he explained the consequences for the regions very well because he, himself, is from a region we would call "remote": the beautiful Gaspé. That is where this employment insurance reform would do harm. While this may be appropriate in an urban region, it seems that the government has in no way considered the consequences of this employment insurance reform on the maritime provinces, or on Quebec specifically.

I have been a member of Parliament for a long time, but I have rarely seen a bill that management and employees are both unanimously against. Not only does this bill destroy the economy, but it also destroys businesses built by families. For example, in the wood industry, in sawmills, workers are trained year after year, but we have winter in Canada, so these individuals are unemployed for a few months and then they return to work at the sawmill. If the workers who are trained to work at the sawmill are moved, that means that the sawmill will have to close and, if those workers have been moved elsewhere, they might not come back.

So there is a huge danger for the regions. This is a direct attack on those regions, and the government should change its position.

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

Mr. Speaker, I share the concerns that have been raised by my colleague. If he has the statistics, the numbers, could he share them with the House?

About 28% of seasonal workers come from Atlantic Canada and close to 40% come from the province of Quebec. I know that those seasonal industries in Atlantic Canada contribute about 54% of the regional GDP, which is a significant part of the GDP of Atlantic Canada.

Could my colleague tell the House, even anecdotally or statistically, what component of the regional economy is drawn from seasonal industries because this budget would place those industries at risk?

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the statistics for the remote regions of Quebec are basically the same as those for the Atlantic provinces. In fact, this is the way it is when a region relies on a single industry, such as fishing or wood. Fishing cannot necessarily be done all year long, nor can wood be cut and processed year-round.

In that respect, it is absolutely tragic for the regions to see cuts being made to employment insurance, which ensures a distribution of wealth. In fact, let us not forget that the government does not pay for employment insurance; it is the employer and the employee who pay for it to provide against these months of unemployment until the regional economy improves thereby ensuring that workers are receiving an essential minimum income. If, however, the workers are sent outside the region, the immediate region will not receive any economic spinoffs during that short period of time.

Since my time is up, once again, I hope that the government will give more thought to the situation of unemployed workers in the regions.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate this opportunity to highlight some of the very important initiatives in the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act and to speak against the opposition amendments to delay this important legislation.

I listened intently this morning to a number of the speeches. I do have tremendous respect for democracy and tremendous respect for this place in which we all work. However, the suggestion by opposition members that democracy is in question here I refute completely and wholly. This is democracy. This is democracy in its finest hour because the government is defending democracy today.

My speech will address a number of things that defend democracy here today. Before I continue, as a member of the finance committee, i will acknowledge the detailed examination of this bill at committee stage. I will give all members the facts.

The finance committee and a special subcommittee, which is one of the first times we have ever seen a special subcommittee on a budget implementation bill, studied today's bill for nearly 70 hours. This is the longest consideration of budget legislation in decades. We heard from literally hundreds of individuals and organizations, from government officials, business leaders, academics, labour groups, industry associations and countless others.

The bill we are debating today positions Canada for economic prosperity, job creation and long-term fiscal health. It is designed to create a climate for private sector investment, innovation and opportunity.

It is crucial that Canada achieve its economic potential so that it can weather another period of global economic uncertainty. The economic upheaval abroad is bound to have an impact on our economy. Even though we must not underestimate the risks, Canadians can be sure that their country is in a good position to face the challenges posed by the global economic situation, as it has done in the past. To that end, we will continue to focus on measures that will keep Canada as competitive as possible during this time of economic uncertainty.

I am convinced that the bill before us today is a blueprint for a strong, prosperous Canada.

Having said all of that, I will now talk about how today's bill builds on Canada's commitment to make us more competitive in the future by removing red tape and bureaucratic obstacles.

As a trading nation, we understand how important an efficient border is to Canadians and our economy. Canada, like many other countries, provides residents returning from abroad with a personal exemption from duties and taxes for goods purchased up to a certain dollar value. Some of these exemption limits for Canadians have remained the same for many years. Given the considerable amount of travel that Canadians undertake every year, it makes sense to update these limits, as consumer groups have long requested.

Effective June 1, 2012, residents returning to Canada after being out of the country for 24 hours or more are exempt from duties and taxes on up to $200 of goods they purchase abroad. The exemption limit for those returning after at least 48 hours abroad has also been raised to $800.

These changes would reduce red tape for travellers who bring in goods within the new exemption limits and make it that much easier for Canadian residents returning home to complete the customs process. More important, these exemptions are exactly the same exemptions the Americans have when they shop here in Canada and return home. Consistency means efficiency. Our government understands how important an efficient border is to Canadians and to our economy.

These new exemption limits would expedite customs clearance for returning Canadian consumers, making cross-border business and personal travel more convenient for Canadians.

To facilitate access to Canadian tourist destinations, Bill C-38 will also eliminate or reduce the taxes on foreign-based rental vehicles temporarily imported by Canadian residents.

Before these changes were announced in Canada's economic action plan, foreign-registered rental vehicles that were temporarily imported by Canadian residents were usually subject at the border to GST on the full value of the vehicle, the green levy and the automobile air conditioner tax.

Until recently, this type of import was prohibited by federal vehicle safety rules, unless the vehicle in question was proven to comply with all Canadian standards.

Rental vehicles temporarily imported by foreign tourists visiting Canada are generally not subject to any taxes or similar restrictions.

In other words, the bill we are discussing today will eliminate or reduce the taxes on foreign-based rental vehicles temporarily imported by Canadian residents and, consequently, will make it easier to access Canadian tourist destinations. That is a good thing.

As households across this country understand, ensuring prosperity also means being responsible in how we treat every dollar.

Canadians know the importance of living within their means and they expect the government to do the same. For example, today's legislation would modernize Canada's current system by eliminating the penny from Canada's coinage system. Over time, inflation has eroded the purchasing power of the penny and multiplied its manufacturing costs. Until penny production was halted recently, it cost taxpayers 1.6¢ every time we made a penny. For businesses, the time and cost of processing pennies has increased, taking them away from the task of growing their businesses and creating jobs.

Other countries, such as New Zealand, Australia, the Netherlands, Norway, Finland and Sweden, have made smooth transitions to a penny free economy. The government expects that businesses will apply rounding for cash transactions in a fair and transparent manner. Canadians can rest assured that they will be able to redeem pennies for full value.

As consumers and businesses begin to rely less and less on the penny in their day-to-day lives, we hope that all Canadians will consider putting their last pennies to good use by donating them to charity. Eliminating the penny from Canada's coinage system will ensure that the Canadian currency system remains efficient and responsive to the needs of consumers, businesses and the economy.

We are also proposing to simplify administrative formalities as we strengthen our immigration system.

The jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act supports the government's commitment to better focus our immigration system on our economic objectives with the following three measures.

First, we are going to return applications to some of the applicants to the federal skilled workers program and refund as much as $130 million in fees. This will shorten the backlog in processing applications in the Canadian immigration system and will allow us to focus our efforts on responding to the real needs of the job market.

Second, we are going to work with the provinces, the territories and other stakeholders to further improve foreign credential recognition and to identify the next set of target occupations beyond 2012. This will help highly qualified new arrivals to find work in the area for which they have been trained and to contribute quickly to the Canadian economy.

Finally, we will continue to study other ways to improve the temporary foreign worker program in order to support economic growth and recovery and to make the program correspond better to the requirements of the job market.

From the countless hours of testimony we heard before the finance committee, I recall the comments of Richard Kurland, noted immigration policy analyst and attorney who told us:

I feel the government is doing the right thing. This is the right solution for a problem that has been plaguing this country for over 25 years. It is the first time it's being fixed.

The door is not shut; it's just that those are no longer the skills we need.

All of these measures would help to ensure that the Canadian economy continues to move in the right direction. We must take these actions in order to respond to the challenges of today while setting out a plan that our long-term goals demand.

I, therefore, urge all hon. members in this House to please take the work of the finance committee and the subcommittee to heart. This is a good bill that would move Canada forward. It would secure jobs, secure long-term prosperity and secure our economic growth.

I implore members from the opposite side to stop arguing about process, to look at the content, to see that it is good for Canadians and to vote in favour of moving this forward.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

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

In her opening comments, she claimed that members on this side of the House do not respect democracy. I must point out to her that democracy is not about passing a bill in haste or about saying to other hon. members, “Too bad—we have a majority”.

But let us talk about the economy. They claim that Bill C-38 will help the economy. Tourism is very important where I come from. Not only will it be affected by the changes to employment insurance, but Parks Canada services are also going to be cut. That will prevent Fort Chambly from providing the same level of service that it previously provided. Fort Chambly is one of the most frequently visited Parks Canada sites in Quebec. In spite of that, services are going to be cut, and the quality of tourism services in the region is going to be lowered, which in turn will have a negative impact on the region.

How will this contribute to economic prosperity and job creation?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question. He touched on a number of issues in his question.

First, I would like to talk about the democracy he mentioned. Democracy is alive and well here in the House of Commons, but when one single NDP member took several days in the House to debate this bill when it was first introduced, leaving only a few minutes for the Liberal Party to respond and no time for other, independent members to raise any objections, I also wonder if the delay amounts to nothing more than a filibuster.

Is that what the hon. member really thinks democracy is? Frankly, the delays are a real obstacle.

In terms of tourism, I just talked about rental vehicles. For some time now, the hon. member for Yukon has talked about the challenge of bringing rental vehicles to Yukon to allow tourists to visit Yukon and the Canadian north. And now we have a provision in this bill to address that situation, a measure that will help us in the tourism sector.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to attend the budget implementation act technical briefing. This was an opportunity for all members and their staff to ask questions with regard to all the amendments and so on that were taking place on the bill. We found that people realized that any of the major questions and concerns that were being raised were of a political nature and certainly not a technical nature.

One example had to do with the integrated cross-border law enforcement operations act, Just a few moments ago, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands indicated that she did not approve of this particular clause.

My question is for the parliamentary secretary. Who was consulted in the development of the act and why is it such an important measure?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Red Deer for the incredible work he does, not only in his riding, but in the House of Commons. He has been instrumental in helping us with the bill.

I want to address this very important clause in the bill. I was disappointed to hear the member from the Green Party say that she was not in favour. Let me list the stakeholders that were consulted. We consulted provincial attorneys general, police associations, local governments and aboriginal groups in close proximity to the border. We spoke with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Association of Police Forces, the Canadian Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement, First Nations Chiefs of Police Association, the Canadian Bar Association, the Barreau du Québec, the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers, et cetera. We spent an enormous amount of time trying to ensure we got this right.

I would have thought we would have at least had support from the opposition parties when we look at legislation that would actually allow us to collaborate with our U.S. counterparts in the area of law enforcement, ensuring we restrict contraband from being smuggled into our country.

A pilot project also ran and something like 1.4 million contraband cigarettes were seized during that project. A child abduction was solved as a result of the pilot project.

Therefore, this is a good measure on which I would have anticipated support from all members. It is unfortunate that the member from the Green Party does not support it. I know her riding members certainly seem to support it.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to discuss some of the provisions in Bill C-38, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act, and to explain why we must not let the New Democrats and the other opposition parties delay its passage.

As the Conservative government said very clearly, since 2006, our focus has been on the economy. As we have all noticed, we are on the right track in terms of jobs and growth. In many ways, Canada has done well despite the global uncertainty. For example, almost 760,000 jobs have been created since July 2009. That is the strongest job creation record in the G7.

The IMF and OECD both project that Canada will have among the strongest growth in the G7. For the fourth straight year, the World Economic Forum rated our banking system the world's best. Forbes magazine ranked Canada as the best place for businesses to grow and create jobs. Canada also has the best fiscal position in the G7 by far. Canada also has the lowest overall tax rate on new business investment in the G7.

In the words of respected financial analyst and commentator, Camilla Sutton, of Scotiabank, “the long-term story for Canada on a relative basis is still a very, very good one. There's very few other places I'd rather be than Canada...when it comes to these uncertain times, Canada holds its own and shines”.

However, we all know that global economic recovery remains fragile, especially in Europe. That is why we are focused on jobs, the economy and implementing economic action plan 2012 through Bill C-38. As successful as our past has been, we must stay focused on the present and the future. The economy must remain at the forefront of our priorities. It is the right thing to do.

The well-being of Canadians depends on a healthy economy. The well-being of my constituents of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell depends on a healthy economy.

A strong economy makes it possible for all Canadians to benefit from growth and long-term prosperity. By making sensible and responsible decisions today, we will provide everyone with a better standard of living tomorrow.

That is the goal that the Conservative government has set for itself with this bill. And that is why it is so important to move forward with this bill today, and not allow the New Democrats and the other opposition parties to delay its passage with their stalling tactics.

In my remarks today, I would like to focus on a few of the measures in Bill C-38 that would help strengthen Canada's housing sector.

The housing sector is one of the most important pieces of our economy. In my riding, certain towns like Clarence-Rockland have seen tremendous growth. Local businesses are benefiting. The local economy is benefiting. For that to continue, there is a real need for new families to choose housing in these communities. We can all agree that the housing market requires ongoing stability and close monitoring.

For most Canadian families, the biggest investment we make in our lifetimes is the purchase of a home. Families will not buy if they think the housing market is unstable. Ensuring that such an investment is secure is the responsible thing to do. That is why our government regularly monitors housing finance risks and takes action when necessary.

For example, we have adjusted the rules for government-backed insured mortgages recently on multiple occasions. In addition, in June 2011, Parliament approved legislation to formalize arrangements with private mortgage insurers and Canada Mortgage and Housing, CMHC, in an effort to better manage risks arising from the mortgage insurance sector.

Now, as part of the Conservative government's ongoing efforts to strengthen the mortgage sector, we are proposing amendments in today's bill that will reinforce supervision of CMHC and guarantee that its commercial activities are managed with a view to promoting the stability of the financial system.

Specifically, the amendments include the following: an additional objective for CMHC of ensuring that its commercial activities promote and contribute to the stability of the financial system, including the housing market; legislative and regulatory powers given to the Minister of Finance in respect of CMHC's securitization programs; powers given to the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to review and monitor the safety and soundness of CMHC's commercial activities and to report to the CMHC board of directors and HRSDC; and the addition of the deputy minister of human resources and skills development and the deputy minister of finance as ex-officio members of CMHC's board of directors.

We believe these amendments would contribute to the long-term stability of the housing market and would benefit all Canadians. We have heard a great deal of positive reaction.

Louis Gagnon, a professor at Queen's University, stated:

I believe that the federal government's plan to bring CMHC under the direct supervision of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions is long overdue.

OSFI is responsible for the oversight of insurance companies and it only makes sense to bring CMHC under its purview, since CMHC is the most systematically important insurance entity in the land and also the most vulnerable one.

This is what the respected Finn Poschmann, vice-president of the C.D. Howe Institute, said:

...the legislation will require at least annual inspections from OSFI, with reports to the board and the responsible ministers. Formalizing the requirement in legislation could do wonders for reporting and accountability, and will help the board and management reassure themselves that CMHC is carrying out its activities...“in a safe and sound manner … with due regard to its exposure to loss.” This is good....

Before concluding, I will turn my attention to the health sector where we are proposing changes to the tax treatment of certain health related goods and services. Health care is very important to the people of my riding, as it is to people across Canada. As a father of five children, I know very well how easily the costs add up when someone is affected by illness. The more our government can do to alleviate these costs during these stressful periods the better.

These changes will better reflect the changing nature of the health sector and will acknowledge the impact of the expenses related to health and disability that Canadians encounter for their own care or that of their loved ones.

For example, we are proposing to remove the GST from the professional services of pharmacists beyond those related to dispensing prescription drugs, which are already tax exempt.

We also propose to expand the list of health care professionals who can order certain medical and assistive devices that are zero rated under the GST. This reflects the increasing involvement of health care professionals, such as nurses, in giving orders for these devices. We also propose to expand the list of GST zero rated medical and assistive devices and the list of expenses an individual may claim for income tax purposes under the medical expense tax credit.

These measures represent a simple, thoughtful and appropriate way to ensure that our tax system remains fair and up to date.

I note that during the finance committee's study of today's act, the Canadian Medical Association voiced its support for the measures that I have just mentioned.

Today's act would accomplish a great deal for Canadians and it contains a host of other measures that deserve my colleagues' attention. As an example, today's act would take the first step toward making important improvements to the registered disability savings plan, or RDSP, by allowing spouses, common-law partners and parents to establish an RDSP for adult individuals who might not be able to enter into a contract themselves.

It has been my pleasure to highlight some of the key measures recently proposed by the Conservative government to keep the country on the path to growth and prosperity.

Now it is important that we work together and continue to co-operate for the good of Canada and Canadians. The measures in today's bill are necessary and will have lasting benefits.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague represents a mostly rural riding with many farmers. I would like to know whether he has had the chance to talk to his constituents, especially those in the agricultural sector, about the changes to employment insurance.

I ask him the question because I have talked to the farmers in my riding. I can say that they are infuriated over the changes. In my riding, as in his I am sure, agriculture provides seasonal employment. The people in my riding see the employment insurance provisions as an obstacle to seasonal employment and a headache for the farmers, as businesspeople who need to retain their workforce.

Has my colleague consulted with farmers to see what they think about this?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a member for an agricultural region and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, I naturally work closely with the farmers in my riding and all across Canada. It has to be said that farmers support our efforts to strengthen the Canadian economy.

Farmers thrive in a healthy economy. They have enough challenges in front of them without also having economic instability. They see that our measures with respect to employment insurance would help Canadians find work. They are particularly concerned about this because they have problems finding help on their farms. They must go to the extraordinary measures of bringing people in from outside of Canada to work on their farms. They would much rather employ people right here within Canada on their farms. These EI measures would help in that regard.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, twice now the government has brought in a new fisheries act to change the existing Fisheries Act. Twice it has been sent back to the drawing board to come back with another act. In two throne speeches it has promised a new fisheries act but has not lived up to those commitments. It has now jammed the fisheries legislation into this bill.

Why will the government not have a separate debate on the Fisheries Act itself? Twice in its throne speeches the government was going to bring in a new fisheries act and now it has jammed it into the budget bill.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would invite my opposition colleagues to work with the mayors in small rural communities, such as mine, and in other rural communities across Canada. They would then hear feedback from the mayors who are trying to maintain the infrastructure within their ridings and yet it is far more costly, far more time demanding and requires more resources because the way in which the Fisheries Act is currently written is employed within small rural communities.

I believe the fisheries minister has his focus right, which is focusing on Canada's fish stock and fish resources and ensuring that we do whatever is possible to protect those resources without compromising what our rural municipalities are trying to achieve.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I just got off the phone half an hour ago with one of my constituents, Doug Dobrowolski, who is a farmer, a businessman and the president of the Association of Manitoba Municipalities. He represents hundreds of mayors, reeves and councillors who have been asking our government, since I have been elected and before that, to change the Fisheries Act in order that it is not punitive to small towns and farmers who are trying to dig ditches and culverts.

It seems that the opposition is always ignoring the needs of rural Canada and putting its needs first. I think it is time that we all realize that we can balance the interests of rural Canadians, protect our fish habitat and do what is good for the country and good for the economy. Would my hon. colleague comment on that?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to comment on that because my colleague is absolutely right. I am from a rural riding myself. My mayors for the past six years have been pressuring me on the difficulties and the challenges they face in maintaining rural infrastructure. What my colleague just said in terms of a discussion that she has had with one of her mayors, it is the same discussion I am having with my mayors. They are asking us to simply find a balance that would allow them to fulfill their responsibilities in a cost-effective and time-effective manner. I believe that this review of the Fisheries Act conducted by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is exactly what Canada needs.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to say that I am pleased to be rising in this House, but that would not be entirely true given our current topic of debate, which is, of course, Bill C-38, the budget implementation bill.

I have heard Conservative members say again and again, and even a moment ago, in the House, in committees and during the first debates we held, that this bill is a marvel and absolutely must be passed for the sake of prosperity, jobs and so on. As a member of the Standing Committee on Finance and the official opposition’s assistant finance critic, I can tell you that nothing could be further from the truth.

This is a very harmful bill. Based on our reading of it, the bill is nothing more or less than an attack on the middle class and less well-off families. It is obvious in several respects that many provisions of this bill have been inserted specifically to put downward pressure on Canadians' wages. Consequently, it is not Canadians who will benefit from it. It will probably be the business world as a whole, which will benefit from declining wages and the competition among a larger pool of unemployed or low-income individuals on which it can draw.

What are those provisions? There are a few. There is obviously division 23 of part 4, which repeals the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. That act established wages that, as its title indicated, were fair for employees, particularly in the construction industry. There are also provisions concerning the Employment Equity Act. The bill will remove employment equity requirements and thus represents a step backward in its approach to companies doing business, that is to say subcontracting, with the government. And there is obviously the issue of employment insurance.

I know my colleagues will definitely be discussing a lot of other provisions in the bill, particularly the increase in the age of eligibility for old age security from 65 to 67, immigration issues and other questions. We have a mammoth bill on our hands, as has been noted many times in the media, but I will limit myself to those three elements for the purposes of my speech.

What people need to realize is that the budget was presented in March and it has passed, although the government would have people believe that this budget implementation bill is the budget. The budget has already passed and it was an austerity budget. With $5.2 billion in cuts, it will have a rather significant impact. Not only is it an austerity budget, but it will clearly have recessionary consequences.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer stated his opinion in that regard and other economists have confirmed his opinion. This shows that the direction this government is taking will prevent us from reaching our economic growth potential, which could help us create many jobs. This austerity budget, which has been criticized by two major rating agencies, Fitch and Moody's, represents a huge economic blow delivered by this government to Quebec and Canadian companies.

Based on his own modelling, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that this budget could possibly cost more than 100,000 jobs by 2015-16, although those jobs can be saved if we are really careful, given that we are currently in a period of economic uncertainty. However, we are not Greece or any of the other countries currently affected by the crisis in Europe. Our reality is altogether different. Yes, we are experiencing some economic uncertainty and we need to be careful, but on the other hand, our problem is quite different from that in Europe.

I find employment insurance very interesting. I know that I only have a minute, but I could probably talk much more about this topic. So, that is a problem. I have spoken with many of my constituents, and those who are most affected are not necessarily the employees themselves—although they will be affected—but it will be the employers. For them, seasonal work is a reality. They have no other choice. That is the case with controlled harvesting zones or with companies that must shut down two or three months out of the year for various reasons, such as that cabinetmaking company in Saint-Jean-de-Dieu. These people fear losing their workforce. A business owner was even worried about the fact that she might have to pay employees to do nothing for two or three months in order to keep them.

I will stop here for now, and I will continue my speech about employment insurance later.

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

Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

When we last took up debate on this question, the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques had five minutes left in his speech and five minutes for questions.

The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette--Témiscouata--Les Basques.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before the break, I was talking about the fact that we saw the bill introduced and the Conservative government's budget as an austerity budget that will have recessionary consequences.

The issue of employment insurance, in particular, is close to my heart. I can demonstrate the impact that this bill's provisions will have on employment insurance with a statement made by the member for Madawaska—Restigouche on the airwaves of a radio station in my riding of Rimouski. He was asked something very simple: if an employee who loses his job accepts a new job at 70% of his salary, for fear of losing his benefits, as stipulated, and he then loses this new job, must he accept a second new job at 70% of the 70% of his initial salary? The member for Madawaska—Restigouche clearly stated that that was the case, according to the logic of the bill, and that that was why we have regulations on minimum wage.

It seems clear from over here that this budget is an austerity and recessionary budget that will push down wages. The middle class and people with fewer resources will pay the price.

I would like to talk briefly about another provision in the bill, namely, division 36 of part 4, which amends the Bank Act. I can assure this House that this will cause serious problems. I feel as though we are in the movie Groundhog Day. We know how some of the provinces, including Quebec, responded to the regulation of financial markets. The matter went all the way to Supreme Court, which recognized the supremacy of provincial jurisdictions in this area. Now the federal government is trying to give itself exclusive jurisdiction over financial institutions, particularly when it comes to consumer protection.

To date, this has been a shared jurisdiction. Of course the Bank Act falls under federal jurisdiction, but consumer protection still falls under provincial jurisdiction, and both levels of government have been acting in co-operation with one another. The federal government made a unilateral decision, without consulting anyone—as was the case with most aspects of this bill—to rewrite a provision and include it somewhere, on page 386, I think, of a 430-page bill. Ultimately, this will cause serious problems because I am convinced that Quebec and perhaps some of the other provinces will want to fight this in court. The very least a responsible federal government could do is consult with its provincial partners, but this one did not.

The Conservatives have a lot to say about how much time has been spent on this debate. The government says that more time has been spent debating this bill than any other budget implementation bill in the past. That is hogwash for a number of reasons.

Seventy laws—69 to be more precise—are being created, abolished or amended. In committee, we generally devote two to three committee meetings to one bill. This bill affects 70 laws. That would represent a total of 140 to 210 hours of consideration in total for all the provisions of this bill. I can say that in committee, we devoted 90 minutes to two hours maximum to the major reform to employment insurance. We spent a maximum of two hours considering an equally big reform to old age security. There was also not enough time to give proper attention to other topics, including the legislation on employment equity, which makes federal contractors no longer subject to employment equity rules.

The bill is extremely problematic for all those reasons. We have said it before and we will say it again: this is extremely anti-democratic. We regret that we still have to be here debating this entire bill, which should have been split up a long time ago.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his very enlightening speech, which shows the extent to which the government is clearly in error as it manages this country.

The hon. member has pointed out a number of problems associated with the consequences of Bill C-38 that will affect provincial jurisdiction. During the debates on Bill C-25, dealing with pooled registered pension plans, one of the hon. members opposite brought up the fact that it is practically impossible to work with the provinces to find common ground using the Canada pension plan, for example.

This is really incredible because, if you go back a number of years, you will see that the Canada Health Act was a work in progress extending over a number of years that allowed for agreement and co-operation between the federal and provincial governments.

I would like the hon. member to enlighten me on this government's almost pathological inability to negotiate and come to agreements with the provinces. Bill C-38 is an example of that.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member brings up an excellent point. It is something we have seen over and over again. Among other things, we have seen it on the subject of the Bank Act, which I mentioned, and on the subject of pensions, which he brought up as well.

The most telling example is employment insurance. Only last week, we saw four provincial premiers, some of whom were Conservatives, take a stand against the fact that the government is going to press ahead with a major reform that is going to affect the regional economy. In Atlantic Canada, as in Quebec, people depend in part on seasonal work. So there will be consequences. Doing this without the slightest consultation is no way to run a federation. The Conservative government has no idea what the word “consultation” means. It tries to pass bills and put measures in place as quickly as it can, and the provinces are often left to pick up the pieces.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to address another problem with Bill C-38.

It is no secret that one of the very serious problems with this bill is all the economic consequences associated with it. They are almost incalculable, but we are going to identify them nonetheless. The government has, in fact, determined what direct cuts would be made to the public service. The Parliamentary Budget Officer managed to identify broader consequences and, above all, has said, since the start of the cuts, that it was going very far. Can the hon. member expand on those consequences?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer was clear about the jobs.

Using the same model that the government and the Department of Finance used, he estimated that the consequences of the austerity budget tabled by the Conservatives would be the loss of about 40,000 jobs in the public and private sectors over the next two years. At the end of four years, in 2015 or 2016, some 100,000 public and private sector jobs would be affected. Why? Because of this austerity budget, the Canadian economy will not be able to achieve its potential or maximum potential. In that respect, a lot of people will unfortunately be affected by losing their jobs or being unable to find employment because it will no longer exist at that point.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to quote the hon. minister of state and hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche, who said:

We need to make sure that employment insurance is not a cushion for people to sit on for months, all year round, year after year... Those people, though they are not many, would often rather take their pink slip and go hunting than go to work.

Those remarks obviously show an incredible lack of respect. Could the hon. member tell me what he thinks?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have already quoted the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche on something else that was problematic. I am not necessarily surprised because this government really seems to think that seasonal workers, regardless of their qualifications, training and efforts, are just lazy and choose to work only a few months to be able to have the rest of the time off. We do not share that attitude on this side. It is unfortunate, but I think that this is very telling of the spirit of the bill we have before us.

Bill C-38--Notice of time allocation motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as the global recovery remains fragile, especially in Europe, Canadians want their government to focus on what matters: job creation, economic growth and long-term prosperity. We are actually doing that through this bill and economic action plan 2012.

We actually welcome debate on this, although I must note that the opposition parties just voted against lengthening debate here in the House. It seems that they only want to stall and delay the process by forcing hundreds of votes on a bill that they opposed before it was even introduced.

With that in mind, I must advise you, Mr. Speaker, that agreement has not been reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) concerning the proceedings at report stage and third reading of Bill C-38, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at those stages.

Report Stage

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and for Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to discuss Bill C-38, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act, and to stand against the NDP and the opposition attempts to delay and defeat it.

As we watch the global economy continue to struggle, most notably in Europe, this legislation would help our country stay the course and ensure that our economy remains sound and strong. Unfortunately, the opposition parties seem more intent on getting attention in the newspapers with their procedural partisan games.

In the words of a recent Toronto Sun editorial:

As Europe stands poised on the brink of a disastrous economic wildfire that could blacken the world, the NDP leader['s] hypocrisy and self-obsession is in full flame.

It goes on to say, “vowing to delay the passing of” economic action plan 2012, “playing silly bugger with amendments and procedure.... This is nothing but grandstanding. Right now--”

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I just heard a couple of terms in the member's speech that I would caution him to watch. He might be quoting from a news article, but I would remind him that he is not allowed to do indirectly what he is not allowed to do directly. If he is going to finish with the citation, he might want to be careful with the words, because I do not think they are helpful to the debate.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was simply quoting from a Toronto Sun editorial, and the purpose of that was to show that it is recognized outside of the House as well that the NDP is simply using delay tactics in order to stop our budget bill from getting through. I could not have said it better.

The NDP and its opposition cohorts are delaying when they should be helping us pass this essential bill so we can ensure that Canada keeps its enviable economic status on the world stage. Canadians elected us to carry out a mandate. That mandate was clear: create jobs, keep taxes low and keep the economy strong. Bill C-38 delivers on that mandate and goes a long way for Canadians. It supports jobs and growth, would create value-added jobs through innovation, would ensure the responsible development of our resources and, most important, it treats taxpayer dollars responsibly because this government is committed to managing the tax dollars of Canadians as if we had earned them ourselves.

Further, we made a commitment to the Canadian people to return to balanced budgets over the medium term. Over the past year, our government conducted a comprehensive review of approximately $75 billion of direct program spending by federal departments and agencies and we identified a number of opportunities to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of government operations, programs and services that will result in cost savings for the Canadian taxpayer.

Canadians know the importance of living within their means and expect their government to do the same. That is why we are committed to managing public finances in a sustainable and responsible manner. Specifically, our government is committed to reducing unnecessary spending by focusing on providing programs that are consistent with federal roles and responsibilities. It is our duty to ensure programs are delivered by those best positioned to do so and to refocus program funding based on achievable objectives and the needs of Canadians.

For example, through economic action plan 2012, we are eliminating the penny. The penny was for many years a positive source of revenue for the Royal Canadian Mint and the Canadian government when its 1¢ face value exceeded the cost of producing and distributing the penny. However, over time, inflation eroded the purchasing power of the penny and multiplied its manufacturing costs. It now costs taxpayers 1.5¢ for every penny made. It is the right time to eliminate it. It is underused by Canadians, no longer vital to commerce and, ultimately, a burden on Canada's balance sheet. The estimated savings from eliminating the penny will be about $11 million a year, helping us to meet our reduction targets and save Canadians money. In the words of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business:

It has been a long time coming. It’s been a real pain more than anything else. We’ve actually polled our members on this and they’re supportive.

Another example of how we are managing taxpayer dollars responsibly is our recent treatment of the Governor General's salary. Following consultations between the Governor General and the government, both have agreed that the income tax exemption for the Governor General's salary should end and that it should be subject to tax in the same manner as the salary of all other Canadians. This tax treatment is consistent with recent measures in other Commonwealth countries, such as Australia and New Zealand, to make the salaries of their governors general subject to income tax as well.

In the words of noted Winnipeg Sun columnist Tom Brodbeck:

Governors general of Canada will no longer enjoy tax-free status on a portion of their salaries: The Queen’s representatives will have to pay taxes just like the rest of us. I didn’t even know they had tax-free status. Good.

Other common sense measures we are undertaking in economic action plan 2012 to reduce costs for taxpayers includes selling some costly official residences abroad and having our diplomats move to more cost-effective ones. This will generate capital revenue of over $80 million. More modest, cost-effective quarters will not impact the ability of our diplomats to do their jobs and it will reduce the number of required staff, resulting in further operating savings.

Finally, another example of refocusing program spending on the needs of Canadians is our government's decision to eliminate the Katimavik program. Make no mistake, our government is committed to our young people and the opportunities they deserve and we will achieve that by funding programs that benefit large numbers of young people at a reasonable cost rather than concentrating available funding on a very small number of participants at an excessive per person cost, such as this program.

Our government is proud to continue to invest in affordable, effective programming that engages youth, including Encounters with Canada, Forum for Young Canadians and organizations that support youth, like the YMCA. Canadian Heritage will continue to invest over $105 million in youth programming to allow almost 100,000 young people to learn about their country.

Further, our government invests more than $330 million annually to support young Canadians through the youth employment strategy. We will provide an additional $50 million over two years to assist more young people in gaining tangible skills and experience.

Last year alone, this investment helped to connect nearly 70,000 Canadian youth with the work experience and skills training they needed to build a foundation for success in the job market. Clearly this exemplifies our government's commitment to Canada's youth.

These are just a few measures in economic action plan 2012 and Bill C-38 that would deliver measurable results to Canadians and better respect Canadian taxpayer dollars. I am proud to say that our Conservative government has a record that is second to none when it comes to responsible fiscal management.

Among the many advantages of our responsible approach is that it preserves Canada's low-tax plan, fostering the long-term growth that generates high quality jobs for all Canadians.

Since 2006, our government has introduced more than 140 tax relief measures, with low-and middle-income Canadians receiving the greatest share of the tax relief. The overall federal tax burden is the lowest it has been in 50 years. As we learned today, tax freedom day is now over two weeks earlier under our Conservative government.

Bill C-38 further demonstrates our government's commitment to the responsible use of tax dollars. In this respect, this bill goes a long way for Canadians. I urge members of the House to hurry up and pass it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments, but I would categorize this bill as one of the most undemocratic bills in Canadian history, with the grouping of almost 70 laws that will be changed in one fell swoop.

The member highlighted a number of things, including the penny. However, I will ask about one issue that will be grouped in among the 70 pieces of legislation, the Fisheries Act, and the sweeping changes of the amendment of the Fisheries Act, specifically section 35 and changes to protecting fish habitat.

Could the member talk about the consultation that was done on this one small part of Bill C-38, which would change the fabric of Canada for many years to come?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe there were two questions from the hon. member.

The answer to the first question, where the member talked about not having enough time to debate this bill, I would like to remind him that we have debated the bill for nearly six weeks. The bill was also referred to the finance committee, where it was further reviewed. The finance committee spent up to 50 hours studying Bill C-38. The subcommittee, studying part 3, spent an additional 18 hours hearing from witnesses.

I can tell the member opposite that in fact we have spent more time debating this bill than any other budget bill in the last 20 years.

With regard to the member's question about the Fisheries Act, under the current Fisheries Act all waterways are treated the same, as he knows. For example, man-made irrigation and drainage ditches in a field are treated the same as the Great Lakes. That does not make much sense. As farmers or municipalities will tell us from their experience, this rule discriminates against them.

Our changes focus protection rules on real and significant threats to fisheries and their habitat that supports them, while setting clear standards and guidelines for routine projects. We are focusing on Canada's fisheries, not on the farmers' fields and culverts.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on the extensive consultations that have gone on for years on the Fisheries Act.

For years, the farmers in my riding have been complaining about the intrusive nature of the Fisheries Act, without any appreciable protection for fish. Municipalities have had to pay untold amounts of money, often for studies that cost more than the actual project is worth. We have certainly listened to the municipalities and to the farmers about the intrusive nature of this. It does not go to protect the fish at all.

I want to especially commend the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the parliamentary secretary for the work done on this file. I understand, as we all do, about how important it is, for example, to protect the fish in Lake Winnipeg, the Winnipeg River, but when my farmers cannot even clear out the cattails out of the ditches on their property because there might be a minnow in there, it is absolutely indefensible. This happens on a regular basis.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments on this subject. I would also like to point out that we are making the conditions of the Fisheries Act permits enforceable. This means that proponents will have to comply with conditions set out in authorizations or face penalties for the first time.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there are significant changes to the regulatory oversight for our petroleum energy industry in the legislation. In today's Globe and Mail, Barrie McKenna argues that the bill actually undermines the NEB's authority and independence and turns back the clock on five decades of credible resource regulation. He says “The omnibus bill gives Ottawa carte blanche over as many as 750 decisions a year”.

Further, he quotes the president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, CAPP, as saying, the NEB, as it existed, “play a very important role in ensuring that we've got [a] secure, reliable, affordable energy supply for Canadians, and sustainably develop our abundant energy resources”.

The industry supported the NEB as it existed, so why is the government making this change and reducing oversight?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's environmental review process, as it currently stands, does not serve the cause of environmental protection as well as it should. There is currently no direct enforcement mechanism in place under the current Environmental Assessment Act to ensure liability. In the federal government, accountability for environmental assessments rests with many different departments, causing duplication and overlap. We are eliminating that so we have a more efficient system that will work for Canadians.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-38 is the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act. Much of Canada now knows that Bill C-38 goes well beyond tax and monetary measures to make major changes in dozens of policy areas, including the environment, natural resources and human resources. The previous speaker talked about being best positioned, that his party received 39% of the vote in the last election, which indeed gave it a majority. However, the Conservatives never once told people they would change EI. They never talked to the Canadian people in that election about changing the fisheries or environment acts.

Recently, the NDP, throughout the finance committee hearings, were clear that we believed that parliamentarians should not be asked to vote on legislation that granted cabinet power to make far-reaching regulatory changes as granted through Bill C-38.

Canadians now also realize that Bill C-38 has well over 400-plus pages. However, I also want everybody who happens to be at home watching tonight to understand that this is just the beginning. There will be another budget bill in the fall with further changes.

Our concerns, and those of many Canadians, go along these lines.

I would state quite categorically that the overhaul to the Environment Assessment Act does not belong in a budget bill. The government wants a one project, one review environmental assessment system, so it is repealing the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act that Canadians have known for many generations and replacing it with an environmental assessment act 2012.

The official opposition contends that this type of decision does not belong with the finance committee. The finance committee does not have the expertise, nor the time to bring before it the people required to complete a proper view. Bill C-38 sets out time limits for the completion of reviews and the minister will have the power to shut down a review panel if he thinks it will not finish on time. Before it can finish on time, it has to do a proper assessment for the benefit and protection of Canadians. That type of decision needs due diligence supplied by comprehensive reviews by experts, not by a minister, and certainly not five-minute rounds of questions in the finance committee.

Bill C-38 contains changes to employment insurance that are particularly concerning to maritimers. We all understand and know very well that our friends on the east coast have a different lifestyle. Our friends on the east coast are subject to the whims of part-time employment.

How does studying the proposed new EI definition, a suitable work, belong with the finance committee? It does not. It clearly belongs before the human resources committee. Bill C-38 would remove the definitions of suitable work from the Employment Insurance Act and would give the federal cabinet the power to create new regulations about what constituted suitable work and reasonable efforts to find that work. This budget bill, Bill C-38, gives no details on what the new criteria will be.

I will move to another section of Bill C-38.

How does the decision on removing the oversight of the Auditor General belong here? The Auditor General will no longer be required to annually audit several agencies: the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the Northern Pipeline Agency and the Canada Polar Commission. These agencies will now submit annual financial reports to the minister or ministers instead. How does putting these foxes in charge of the henhouse do anything for jobs and prosperity?

Bill C-38, with the swipe of a pen, would eliminate tens of thousands of backlogged immigration applications. Among the amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is a move to wipe out the backlog of 280,000 applications under the federal skilled worker program.

These are people who placed their faith in Canada. They could have applied to other countries that needed their skills. These are skilled individuals. They made applications to become Canadian citizens because they trusted Canada. They were told that we needed their skills. We hear it in this House regularly how we need skills, but now those who applied before 2008 would have their applications deleted and refunded. The hopes and dreams of these qualified potential new citizens with skills that Canada needs would be set aside by a budget bill. This issue clearly belongs in a committee other than finance.

These changes would not only destroy the dreams of people who trusted Canada, but imagine what would happen to Canada's once trusted reputation in these countries. How in the world can the government justify doing this within a budget bill, with the claim that it would improve our prosperity?

One of the more ludicrous parts of Bill C-38, which one of the previous speakers mentioned, is how the Fisheries Act changes came before the finance committee. Even if we have concerns, and I trust the word of members on the other side when they say they have concerns with the Fisheries Act, the finance committee is not the place to turn to.

I happen to be the NDP human rights critic for international affairs. I shook my head with dismay when I read that Bill C-38, the budget bill, would scrap the office of the Inspector General of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. We have good people in our police services and we have good people in CSIS, but this office is meant to be the public safety minister's eyes and ears overseeing CSIS. In my opinion, in the shadowy world of CSIS, it is critical to have civilian oversight.

Bill C-38 would shut down several government-funded groups and agencies, such as the National Council of Welfare, the Public Appointments Commission, Rights & Democracy, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal, and Assisted Human Reproduction Canada.

Bill C-38 would create a new social security tribunal to hear appeals of decisions made under the Old Age Security Act, the Employment Insurance Act and other benefit programs. The bill would create a new Shared Services Canada department. We had people who were part of tribunals looking into the situation of appeals for people on Employment Insurance. They were experts and had jurisprudence in that area. Now that would be done away with and these same people would be lumped in. These are good people who have worked hard for us. I have no doubt that some of them would apply, but it would be housing too much responsibility for too broad a front with too few people.

Bill C-38 would change the age of accessing OAS from 65 to 67. I will not say very much about that because I have spoken in this place many times on it. I will simply say that the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the OECD pension review team said it was sustainable. There is a clear disagreement.

Government members will say that this is not the longest budget bill in history. That is true. They will say that it is receiving hours of debate. That is also true. However, what they do not say is that the changes I have outlined and others should have been before a number of different committees of Parliament.

My rights as a member of Parliament have been pushed aside and the rights of every member on both sides of this House have been pushed aside by the bill. We are not able, nor allowed, to do the due diligence necessary to protect the rights of Canadians. In my opinion, when Canadians look at the bill and see what it actually is, they will see that the better name for the bill is the “eliminating transparency and settling old scores act”.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek for his comments. It seems that the cuts he spoke of affect mostly the disadvantaged and marginalized, people who can least afford it.

One program to be cut is the community access program which provided needed funds for communities to provide computers and Internet access to people who can least afford it; people in urban areas and particularly rural areas where they do not have 100% connectivity. In Guelph, there are at least 300 people a day who use it at the library.

Could my friend comment on the dramatic effect this would have across Canada?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an important question. I visited a library in Hamilton within the last two months and I watched people accessing the Internet via computer. I watched their excitement. Most of these people were 40 and older and had no access of their own. They could not afford it. Some were looking for work, some were playing games, some older people had their grandchildren there. Overall we had a community place in our library that was vibrant again, more than I had ever seen it before. I had a sense that these people had hope. That has just been snatched away from them and that is disgraceful.

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in 1994 the Liberals introduced a budget implementation act which was overly large and a bit of an omnibus bill. At that time, one of the members got up and said, “Mr. Speaker, I would argue that the subject matter of the bill is so diverse that a single vote on the content would put members in conflict with their own principles”. He went on to say, “Second, in the interest of democracy I ask: How can members represent their constituents on these various areas when they are forced to vote in a block on such legislation and on such concerns?" Then he said, “I would ask that you give consideration to this, Mr. Speaker. I would also ask the government members, particularly those who have spoken on precisely this question in the previous Parliament with precisely the same concerns, to give serious consideration to this issue of democracy and the functionality of this Parliament now.”

That person was the hon. member for Calgary West in 1994 and he is our Prime Minister now. How does the hon. member feels about the hypocrisy of this minister?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I tend to put faith in the words I hear coming from various members on both sides of this House. I will not pass judgment on the words that were spoken previously by this individual. However, I will say that this individual ran an election campaign where his party did not tell Canadians what it was going to do. The Conservatives have a very slim majority of 39.9%. They would make changes at a level that would affect our grandchildren for years to come. The tragedy is they do not allow us to do due diligence on this and look at it appropriately. We have people sitting in this House whose own families would be impacted in a way that I doubt they understand. We have not done due diligence. We have not been allowed to. And worse, the Conservatives did not tell Canadians that is what they would do. From touring the country, talking to people on EI and on old age security, I can tell members that the Conservatives would not have gotten their majority had they told people the truth, and clearly that is why they did not.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek for his speech. I really liked his comments about the democratic problem with Bill C-38.

We are basically telling a majority of Canadians, millions and millions of Canadians, that they have exercised their right to vote, but that their representatives do not have the right to represent them; that they cannot represent them. They are being denied their right to speak and their right to vote.

Could the hon. member expand on this democratic deficit?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

One of the sad things we saw in the last election campaign, and I am not assessing blame on whoever was guilty of this, was the attempt to suppress the legitimate right of Canadians to vote. Somebody did this. However, because of the approach of the government of the day relative to the operations of the day, it has taken away the incentive for Canadians to send us here, and that is a tragedy.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the chance to rise today in Parliament against opposition attempts to delay and defeat Bill C-38, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act.

Today's act includes significant and critical measures that form economic action plan 2012 to support Canada's economy and help fuel job creation, a budget that has been public and in debate since March, for over four months. Since March, today's act has received numerous and record-breaking amounts of debate, including the longest amount of debate at second reading and the most amount of time for committee consideration in over two decades when compared to other budget implementation bills.

Clearly, economic action plan 2012 is an extremely important document, and Bill C-38 is equally important. It is vital to the continued strength of the Canadian economy. I would really hope that opposition members would be less concerned about partisan procedural games to delay and defeat Bill C-38. Instead, I call on them to join our Conservative government and focus on helping create jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity. That is what matters to Canadians and their families. I am happy to report that we are getting real results to improve Canada's economy and job market.

Canada has the longest record of job growth in the entire G7 in recent years, with nearly 760,000 net new jobs created since July 2009, 90% full time and more than 80% in the private sector.

However, we cannot be complacent. The global economy remains extremely fragile and challenges remain, as we see in ongoing events in places like Greece and Spain. Such global challenges can ultimately impact Canada as we are not immune. For that reason, we are committed to the rapid implementation of economic action plan 2012. Our Conservative government, like many people across this country, is deeply disappointed with the NDP and other opposition parties that are trying to delay and defeat such key measures to support Canada's economy.

I want to read from a recent Toronto Sun editorial to illustrate that point, and I will quote at length as my colleague did earlier:

As Europe stands poised on the brink of a disastrous economic wildfire that could blacken the world, NDP leader's...self-obsession is in full flame.... vowing to delay the passing of that very same budget...by playing silly bugger with amendments and procedure.... This is nothing but grandstanding.... This is a budget designed to create jobs and inspire economic growth, and it comes to the House of Commons at a moment that can only be described as the 11th hour of a global economic conflagration.... Right now, there is only one enemy in our fight to protect Canada from the repercussions of Europe's burning. And it's [the NDP leader].... This is inarguable.

I completely agree.

By focusing on growth and job creation, the new measures in economic action plan 2012 will also solidify, strengthen and draw upon the role of entrepreneurs as the driving force behind Canada's economy. For example, the government is committed to ensuring that Canadians fully benefit from the economic opportunities associated with our natural resources, while protecting the environment.

We know that the existing system needs comprehensive reform. Today, Canadian businesses in the resource sector must navigate a maze of overlapping and complex regulatory requirements. This can discourage potential new investors and undermine the economic viability of major projects while providing no additional benefit to the environment.

This is wrong, which is why we have worked since 2006 to streamline and improve regulatory processes. However, more needs to be done. Economic action plan 2012 responds to this need by introducing system-wide legislative improvements to streamline the review process for major economic projects.

We will reform the regulatory system so that reviews are conducted in a timely and transparent manner while safeguarding the environment. Today's bill includes a number of initiatives to meet this objective. For example, today's legislation would establish a new federal environmental assessment regime that would consolidate responsibility for assessments from more than 40 departments and agencies to 3 responsible authorities, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the National Energy Board.

The legislation would also set timelines for environmental assessments and provide for greater co-operation between jurisdictions. For example, the bill would amend the National Energy Board Act to establish time limits for regulatory reviews under the act and would enhance the powers of the chair and the responsible minister to ensure that those reviews are conducted in a timely manner.

The government's position on the environment is very clear. We can achieve our economic priorities while continuing to protect the environment. For example, economic action plan 2012 proposes $13.5 million over two years to the National Energy Board to increase the number of inspections of oil and gas pipelines from about 100 to 150 inspections per year and double from 3 to 6 the number of annual comprehensive audits to identify issues before incidents occur. We must be vigilant in guarding our spectacular natural treasures and we must preserve them so we can pass them down to future generations. That is why protecting Canada's environment and the health of Canadians will remain a key government priority.

Other key measures in today's act deal with the housing market, amendments to improve oversight of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC. As we work toward getting our own government house in order, we continue to be mindful of other parts of the economy in need of careful stewardship. There is no doubt that housing has been top of mind for many Canadian families, and just as the government's management must be done with long-term objectives in mind, so too must the housing market be approached with a responsible, measured and long-term view so that it remains strong and stable over time.

In order to protect our housing market from excesses seen in other economies and to support the long-term stability of our housing market, our government has acted three times to adjust the rules for government-backed insured mortgages. These adjustments include requiring a minimum down payment of 5% for owner-occupied properties and 20% on speculative properties, reducing the maximum amortization period to 30 years from 35 years for mortgages with loan-to-value ratios of more than 80% and lowering the maximum amount Canadians can borrow in refinancing a mortgage to 85% from 95% of the value of their homes. We also withdrew government insurance from backing home equity lines of credit. In short, we discouraged some Canadians from using their homes as automatic bank machines and encouraged them to use their homes as saving vehicles.

Today's proposed legislation amendments are part of the government's continuous effort to strengthen the housing finance system. These amendments would strengthen the governance and oversight of CMHC and ensure that the corporation's commercial activities are managed in a manner that promotes the stability of the financial system. These enhancements include the additional objectives for CMHC to ensure its commercial activities promote and contribute to the stability of the financial system, including the housing market; legislative and regulatory authorities for the Minister of Finance in respect to CMHC's securitization programs; authorities for the superintendent to review and monitor the safety and soundness of CMHC's commercial activities and report to CMHC's board of directors and to the ministers of finance and HRSDC; and the addition of the deputy minister of human resources and skills development and the deputy minister of finance to CMHC's board of directors as ex officio members.

We will continue to act when necessary to support the long-term stability of Canada's housing markets and encourage savings through home ownership. For all these reasons, I encourage Canadians and the opposition to support Bill C-38 and help us get this bill passed today.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech. I listened quite attentively. Like all his colleagues, he unfortunately hides behind very simplistic reasoning.

I want to come back to the issue of job creation. Unfortunately, this government's track record when it comes to jobs is quite average, if not bad. We can talk in absolute numbers, with the creation of some 700,000 jobs since 2009, but in reality, Canada's population growth is very dynamic. For example, when we look at job creation in relation to population growth, Canada is a fairly average and ordinary achiever compared with Germany which, in relative terms, has created more jobs despite a much less dynamic population.

Why is my colleague, a government apologist, doctoring reality and hiding the not always profitable consequences of his government's policies from the Canadian public?

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our country came out of a very serious recession two and a half years ago. Clearly, we were very fortunate and blessed to have strong leadership, strong management and a solid banking system.

To the member's comment about job creation, 760,000 net new jobs since the end of 2009 is extremely good performance, to my thinking, representative of the leadership of this country by our Prime Minister and our Minister of Finance. We are recognized amongst the OECD as being a leader in economic development and growth.

Having seen the success of our country as we have come out of that recession and how fortunate we are compared to other countries that have suffered so seriously, I think the member opposite should be applauding our government.

That is why I support our government and all the good work we have accomplished on this end.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the question I have for my hon. colleague has to do with the employment insurance.

We know the government has decided to do away with the regional appeal boards. That was an opportunity, of course, for those who were appealing the decisions that were made by the government of whatever stripe. With the regional appeal boards, they would have an opportunity to appeal that decision in a face-to-face situation.

That will not be the case now. I guess what I am asking, because there are so few details in terms of what exactly would happen, is how the hon. member sees the new process working and how valuable that is compared to what existed prior to the changes,

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have had, again, a tremendous amount of debate on employment insurance and related topics of employment boards and the like across the country.

Clearly the development by the minister and by HRSDC has been to streamline the processes, to create more efficiency and greater effectiveness in our ability to deal with these situations. To that end, I think the boards as proposed would more than adequately meet the requirement.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, an important measure in the budget implementation bill is changes to the Fisheries Act that would, for example in rural ridings like ours, allow farmers to clean a ditch and not have to be caught up in unnecessary regulations, while allowing DFO to be focused on areas like the western basin of Lake Erie where the commercial fishery is very important.

I want to know what the member thinks of those positive changes that would allow DFO to be focused on what it needs to do and allow farmers to get on with what they need to do.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the changes that have been proposed would create greater efficiency and greater opportunity for those in the farming world to deal with their issues and those who are dealing with the habitat of fisheries to clearly focus on those issues directly.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the great pleasure this evening of taking the floor in the House to debate Bill C-38.

I will honour my colleagues across the way, who truly love superlatives—they thirst for them—and congratulate each other a lot. I must admit that, to my eyes, to my knowledge, Bill C-38 is an important, if not a crucial, part of the greatest plan to dismantle the country ever seen since Confederation. It is a massive and destructive operation that my colleagues opposite are praising and supporting without it weighing on their conscience, despite the millions of victims it will create in Canada.

it is very important to frame it this way because not all of our actions are innocent, on the contrary. Our actions have significant immediate and, of course, future consequences.

One of the very important aspects of Bill C-38 is that it is just one step more after many steps of significant cuts to the Canadian state, to various government operations, be they direct operations involving individuals or operations involving all the provinces of the Canadian confederation.

This reminds me of another sad, dark time in recent history: in the mid-1990s, Chrétien and his finance minister made harsh cuts that hurt everyone in Canada.

Obviously, there are many ways to address certain problems, and the government just needs a little imagination and a little willingness to talk to and co-operate with other partners to seek and find solutions that are the lesser evil—as they say—to problems that seem insurmountable or inescapable. At the very least, the government must avoid subjecting vulnerable members of society to pointless suffering. That is truly inescapable.

As Christ said, “You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.” He did not want his disciples to collect money for the poor at the risk of forgetting to concentrate on his message.

Here is another parable, an important one, to illustrate just how drastically this government is compromising our heritage and the future of all Canadians of all ages. I will focus on young people, but people of all ages—including seniors—may find themselves paying a heavy price.

It is the parable of the prodigal son, who asks his father for his share of the inheritance immediately. He quickly wastes every last bit of his money on strangers.

That is what is happening here. Instead of taking care of things at home, the Conservatives are slashing taxes, adding counter-productive exemptions, being careless and adopting questionable practices vis-a-vis foreign investors. I know what I am talking about because I can see this in my very own riding. Much to my chagrin the members opposite told me in their responses that I am against investors and against economic growth.

I have a question. When an honest worker or a retiree is deprived of tens of thousands of dollars, even hundreds of thousands of dollars, that he worked hard to put aside in a private pension fund, through the fault of a foreigner who does not care about the fate of those who work for him, and this happens because of loopholes in the Canadian legislation, what type of society are we building for the future?

It will be a society of the poor who will serve the very small, very wealthy minority. Does the government opposite want the New Democrats to be a party to this operation? I am saying no. I am shouting no. We especially do not want to be party to that, absolutely not.

This government has used the absolutely—or probably, I will hold back a little—most simplistic arguments to defend its bill. They are the most simplistic arguments ever presented in this House. It is absolutely incredible to be given a mess of figures without any context, which flies in the face of reality and shows contempt for the truth.

It is truly appalling to see this government, in its operation of massive destruction, clearly targeting all those with the necessary empirical knowledge to understand what will happen now and in future years with Bill C-38. An incredible number of scientists have been fired, attacked, muzzled, and told to shut up. We are talking about people who have spent many years of their lives studying and, furthermore, dedicating themselves to a vocation: to serve the truth and all of society.

How can a government be so mean and contemptuous toward the intellectual elite of our society? It is a true horror to see that. Bill C-38 sanctions it. The government sets itself up as an enemy to science, to intellectuals and to people who have knowledge they can use to the benefit of society. Let us call a spade a spade. That is exactly what is going on here.

When you get down to it, Bill C-38 is a massive attack on millions of Canadians, be they retired or entrepreneurs. When we talk about employment insurance-related measures, it is mainly an attack on entrepreneurs who do seasonal work in logging, agriculture and fishing operations. Even in urban areas, let us think about people who work in construction and road repair. Quebec City is one of Canada's snowiest cities, and every winter in Beauport—Limoilou I have seen hundreds of skilled tradespeople and operators of heavy machinery clearing snow during the night after storms or heavy snowfalls. All these people depend on employment insurance not only to make ends meet, obviously, and to find a way to meet the city's needs, but also to preserve and protect their particular expertise that cannot be applied year-round.

This government is deaf and blind to this reality that affects millions of Canadians. It is absolutely unbelievable to see this kind of thing.

One of the clearest signs—and I will end with this—that the government does not care in the slightest about those millions of Canadians is that they are constantly boasting about the fact that this is going to bring a lot of prosperity to all Canadians.

However, one of the clearest signs that many Canadian households spend every last dollar of their income each week or month is that, currently, there is $500 billion in unused RRSP contributions, unused RRSP tax credits. It means that those millions of Canadian do not even have the means to save, and this government does not care. Actually, the only thing that it seems to care about is to force them to save at the expense of the bread and butter that they could be putting on the table.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are not completely opposed to everything in this budget. For example, we are not opposed to the elimination of the penny nor to the funding for employers to hire new employees. That was in our NDP program, actually.

However, we are opposed to the government interfering with old age security and employment insurance, when we know that the government has not contributed one penny to the EI fund since 1990. The workers, the employees and the employers contribute to it.

We are also opposed to the government interfering with the environment, especially—and I would like to have the hon. member's opinion on this—when it introduces a bill in which it hides about 70 pieces of legislation—legislation that should not be there because this is not an omnibus bill—of which 30% deal with the environment and are all very well concealed. People may say that we are opposed to the budget, but we are not opposed to everything in the budget; we are against this way of doing things and we are against the fact that the government is hiding all these things in it.

Could the hon. member comment on that?

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for her question. She has actually raised a very important point and that is how incredibly mean-spirited the government is in conducting the business of the House.

It is really unfortunate and I have been able to observe it a number of times at the Standing Committee on International Trade, as well as at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. On many occasions, we have reached out to this government to work together for the well-being of all Canadians and to try to find the best solution in a friendly way.

The hon. member brought up a very important point and that is that, by putting forward this assortment of poison pills, the toxic and corrosive cocktail that is Bill C-38, this government is simply eliminating any good little measures that we could have approved.

Ultimately, the government is simply trying to kill the opposition and to bend any form of opposition to its almighty will. This lack of insight and this disrespect for the majority of the Canadian population are completely unbelievable.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had earlier asked the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek about the community access program, and I know that my friend opposite is from Quebec. I am wondering about the following.

The community access program is used by so many urban people who would otherwise not have access to computers or to the Internet, particularly in rural areas where they do not have 100% connectivity. It is very important for those who are marginalized, who have little income and certainly not enough income to afford computers or Internet access. I wonder to what degree the entire removal of that program would affect the people from Quebec.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Guelph for his question. Both my son and I have used this program because there were computers available in a community centre just steps away from my house. I was able to see how this was in the interest of the people who could not afford computers or Internet services, which are still quite expensive.

Let me go back to the fact that $500 billion in RRSP exemptions are unused. That represents millions of Canadians with modest incomes. I remember very well that the community access centre was used by retirees and young people. At the time, I was a warehouse worker and my income was more limited. Without such a program, my son would have not been able to have access to the Internet, just like a number of his school friends.

The loss of this program is tragic given how little it costs. Let me repeat that the government is very mean-spirited to cut this program, which is actually working very well.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, last week we were treated to the unbelievable sight of the Leader of the Opposition demanding that Canadian taxpayers bail out failing European banks. I confess I initially gave the Leader of the Opposition the benefit of the doubt. I assumed that he had misunderstood the situation because as an honourable Canadian, clearly he could not seriously have been proposing that the ordinary working people of this country, the people the NDP members claim to represent, should, from their hard-earned tax dollars, relieve the distress of Europeans who have lived for far too long on money borrowed from the next generation. No, I could believe no such thing; it was preposterous.

However, over the weekend, my hon. friend from Markham—Unionville, in fact a former finance critic for the Liberal Party and in a past incarnation a prominent banker of a leading Canadian bank no less, called for a massive bailout. It is impossible that he does not understand economics and I know the member to be a patriot. So I wondered what malign influence could possibly have come upon him, in his disturbed slumber perhaps, and vexed his waking hours with doubt over what is clearly in the best interests of the very people who entrusted him with their vote. Alas, I am sorry to say that his confusion about who is actually responsible for European debt, that is, either European taxpayers or Canadian workers, could be traced to none other than the leader of his party, the hon. member for Toronto Centre.

Unbelievably, my hon. friend stood in this very House today and said that any Canadian transfer to the IMF “goes on our books as an asset”. Perhaps I should not say “unbelievably”, for some who have known my colleague from Toronto Centre for a long time and are all too familiar with how he looks at government finances would say that his reaction was to be expected. Indeed, it is completely believable that the former NDP Premier of Ontario would have an auto worker from Windsor, or a fisherman from my own New Brunswick riding, or a hard-working grain farmer on the Prairies stake his or her meagre assets upon the management expertise of a European bank, or the financial acumen of the people who continued to lend money to European governments long after debt loads had climbed into the red zone; and completely believable that Canadian taxpayers, in need perhaps of a medical procedure for which he or she must wait in line, should instead use his or her dollars to refinance the medical procedure enjoyed by a citizen of the eurozone some 10 or 20 years ago and paid for with borrowed funds. “Yes,” they would say, because for those who have carefully followed what the opposition members have had to say about public finances over the last 10 years, it is all very believable.

That is why those members are the opposition and should remain so. They do not understand economics 101. I am not even sure they understand the simple reality that if something cannot go on forever, it will eventually stop. We know we cannot fight debt with debt, we cannot borrow our way to prosperity and we cannot expect to run deficits forever without hitting the wall. The question is, will Europe stop before it hits this wall or will it simply crash into it?

Europe is a rich continent. It has 10 times the population of Canada. Many Canadians trace their ancestry to the countries of Europe and forever hold dear the heritage of their forefathers. Indeed, their fathers and grandfathers fought to liberate their ancestral homes from tyrannies. Therefore, we wish them well. However, Europe has lived too well for too long on borrowed money and the time has come for Europeans to deal with it. We do them no favours if we facilitate their addiction to borrowed money by sending them some of our own, for yes, we too have a debt.

Perhaps this is a good time for us all to review first principles. As former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once said, the facts of life are conservative. Well here are a few facts. One, people are better able to spend their own money than the government is able to spend it for them. Two, government does not create wealth; it only consumes, by way of taxes and usually even more taxes, the wealth created by entrepreneurs, labourers and investors. Three, if society wants less of something, they tax it and, similarly, if governments want to encourage an activity like job creation, it ought to remove barriers, be those regulations that tie businesses in red tape or high taxes that drive away investment and encourage people to work less.

These are not new ideas, but they are appropriate ones when the goal is to foster a nation's long-term economic prosperity and they are ideas that Europe should adopt rather than asking other nations to bail it out.

That is why our government met the recession with a package of measures to make the economy grow, our economic action plan. That is why our government has made it a priority in that plan to eliminate the deficit. That is why our government has introduced vital reforms to labour, employment insurance, immigration and to regulatory review processes. This is done to stimulate growth, to build employment and to give people hope that their tomorrows will be better than their yesterdays and to spare them the hardships of a government that does not know its place.

We have two paths ahead of us: prudence today or austerity tomorrow. I choose prudence. That is why we keep taxes low and work to spend within our means. Low taxes reward the industrious. They encourage the enterprising. They lead to higher employment and they give ordinary people more power over their own lives to dispose of their income in their own interest as they see best.

It is no accident that Canada flourishes while others do not. It is not by chance that our Prime Minister says that Canada is an island of stability in a hostile world. This is the result of good, sound economic and fiscal policy.

I note that today, June 11, is tax freedom day. This is the day Canadian taxpayers stop working to pay taxes to all levels of government and, instead ,start working for themselves and providing for their families. When our government won office this day fell on June 6 some six years ago. That is over two weeks later than it is today. This is an accomplishment we can be proud of for it has benefited millions of Canadians. I for one hope tax freedom day continues to arrive earlier and earlier and we as lawmakers push for that day to fall in April some day. That would be a tax freedom day for which we could all be proud.

Canadians have worked hard, paid their taxes and trusted their government to do the right thing by them. We respected their hard work, as they deserve. We have been good stewards of their taxes, as we should. We have delivered on that trust, as we are obliged to do. We will not repay them now by rewarding the foolhardy. We will not help the entitled in other lands to meet their exaggerated expectations.

I believe the measures in the budget will reduce Canada's overspending, which will ensure our economy remains strong and jobs continue to be created and generated here in Canada. That in turn will allow us to fulfill our election promises to provide income tax cuts for middle-class families.

This is a lesson Europe should learn. The path to prosperity and economic renewal is not the road that involves ever more debt and higher taxes. It will begin when nations live within their means and there is less debt and lower taxes. Regrettably, this would seem a lesson the leaders of the two opposition parties ought to know. No wonder they do not know how to respond to the crisis in Europe. They would have us follow them on the road to fiscal ruin here at home. To that we stand with taxpayers and we say no.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the sole purpose of the government is to spend money, what is our purpose? What purpose does the government serve? What is the point of adding more members of Parliament?

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, as a government, we are spending billions of dollars to make sure our country will be strong in the future. But we are spending only what we can, and we are asking taxpayers to pay only what they can. Giving money also to the Europeans because they have problems too is not a priority for us. It is up to them to find solutions.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague about what we have heard from the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development. The minister acknowledged that her department did not conduct consultations on the changes to employment insurance that are in Bill C-38. She said that she had consulted members of Parliament from places like New Brunswick, like my hon. colleague.

I wonder if the member could confirm that the minister consulted him and that he among other Conservative MPs are really the source of these changes to employment insurance.

I wonder if my colleague feels that this will not have any negative effects on his riding, on companies like Ganong, on seasonal industries like the tourism industry in his riding and others. Is he really only representing the elite of taxpayers?

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, our party is the party that cut the GST. The member's party is the party that proposed we increase the GST.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

What about EI?

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

I will get to all that, but I want to start by pointing out that the member's party is the party of tax cuts for the elite, and our party is the party of tax cuts for ordinary hard-working Canadians.

As to the reforms to employment insurance, I am proud to say that, yes, I was a member who was consulted by the minister. These are comprehensive reform packages that I believe will connect the unemployed with jobs that are available in their area. These are modest reforms that will lead to a better labour market. I do not believe there will be a negative adverse impact that the opposition continues to fearmonger about. These are--

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I will just stop the hon. member there to allow for some more questions and comments.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, that was an excellent presentation on what our government proposes to do for Canadians and what the opposition, with its left wing, very socialist ideology, is presenting to Canadians. I think it is very evident what Canadians have chosen.

Could my hon. colleague comment on the fact that the Liberals have moved so far to the left? In fact, I think they have talked about standing shoulder to shoulder with their union bosses. We know that members of the NDP are socially incredibly ideological and, in some cases, some of them are separatists and Communists.

Could my hon. colleague talk about the Liberals and their extreme move to the left, what danger that has to the Canadian public and what the alternative is as far as our Conservative government?

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not like to speak ill of the third party. In the past, it has offered great leadership to this country at times, but I do worry about its future, given that its presumptive leader finds himself in a difficult situation. On one hand, when he is questioned by the official opposition, he is forced to defend the Liberal measures in the mid-1990s, which involved restraint and balancing the budget, measures that, I would concede, helped Canada through the downturn and measures we have built on and improved on.

At the same time, with the same measures, the leader of the third party is also rightly criticized for his record as the former and, I believe, failed premier of Ontario, which is a very difficult position to be in, because Canadian taxpayers can never be sure which policy the member would champion--that of taxpayers or, more likely, that of failed policies, which were on display today when he called for a bailout of European banks.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-38, the 425-page omnibus budget implementation act. It would, among other things, gut Canada's environmental laws; break the Conservatives' election promise by raising the age of eligibility for OAS from 65 to 67; create uncertainty for businesses, workers and seasonal industries with changes to EI that attack rural Canada, Atlantic Canada and the provinces; and that would hurt Canada's international brand by tearing up 100,000 immigration applications.

Bill C-38 imposes the Conservatives' unilateral decision to reduce health transfers to the provinces and territories. It allows the Conservatives to target charitable organizations they disagree with.

It would wipe out groups such as the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, Rights and Democracy and the National Council on Welfare. All of these groups have one thing in common: over the last 30 years, and in some cases more, these groups were independent. They were funded through the government, but they took independent positions based on evidence that was sometimes contrary to the governing party, which was, in some cases, Liberal governments, in other cases, Progressive Conservative governments. However, the current Conservative government is the first government that actually de-funded these groups simply because they disagreed with the governing party.

Bill C-38 would reduce the Auditor General's oversight on a number of government agencies, including the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Northern Pipeline Agency. It would reduce oversight on Canada's spy agency by abolishing the office of the Inspector General. It would repeal the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act. It would eliminate a number of the government's reporting requirements on climate change and public service jobs. It would make changes that experts warn are unconstitutional to parole hearings.

The finance committee spent a few days studying the legislation since the House last debated the bill. A finance subcommittee was struck to examine part 3 of the bill, which was focused on environmental measures. However, this study took place while the environment committee was travelling to Alberta and Nova Scotia, which limited the ability of key MPs with expertise on the environment to participate in the Bill C-38 study.

The subcommittee's report on Bill C-38 was a disgraceful whitewash. The main report did not include any reference to public opposition to the bill, with the exception of a single reference that completely misrepresented the testimony of former Progressive Conservative fisheries minister, Tom Siddon. Mr. Siddon, who was the fisheries minister from 1985 to 1990 in the Mulroney government, said:

They are totally watering down and emasculating the Fisheries Act.

They are really taking the guts out of the Fisheries Act and it’s in devious little ways if you read all the fine print...they are making a Swiss cheese out of [it].

That was said by a former minister of fisheries, a Progressive Conservative activist and minister.

Mr. Siddon was part of a group of four former fisheries ministers, two Liberal and two Progressive Conservatives, who wrote a letter warning the government of the disastrous effect the bill would have on our fisheries.

The subcommittee's report endorsed the changes made to the National Energy Board despite having heard from witnesses who were overwhelmingly opposed to these changes.

Today, Barrie McKenna's article in the The Globe and Mail argues that Bill C-38 undermines:

...the NEB’s authority and independence [and] turns back the clock on five decades of credible resource regulation.... The omnibus bill gives Ottawa carte blanche over as many as 750 decisions a year. That is a lot of authority for Canadians with their X mark in the voting booth to grant a cabinet dominated by one man. It delegitimizes the NEB and injects needless uncertainty into the process.

Furthermore, industry was not calling for a lot of these changes. In fact, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, CAPP, stated that the NEB plays “a very important role in ensuring that we’ve got [a] secure, reliable, affordable energy supply for Canadians, and sustainably develop our abundant energy resources”.

The main finance committee studied parts 1, 2 and 4 of the bill. We heard from officials and a total of 57 witnesses on the 636 clauses contained in parts 1, 2 and 4. To be blunt, the study was a farce. The committee's timeline was rushed, leaving us unable to examine many aspects of the legislation.

We were not given the chance to hear from a single witness outside of the government on a large number of the issues. For instance, we did not hear from any municipal leaders, despite the impact of Bill C-38 on communities.

The main finance committee did not hear from any witnesses from aboriginal groups, even though this bill proposes a number of changes that will impact them directly, such as changes to the First Nations Land Management Act. Parliament has a responsibility to consult with Canada's aboriginal peoples before making these changes.

National Chief Shawn Atleo did appear before the subcommittee. He said:

To date, first nations have not been engaged or consulted on any of the changes to the environmental and resource development regime proposed within Bill C-38....In its current form, part 3 of C-38 clearly represents a derogation of established and asserted first nations rights. If enacted, it will increase the time, costs, and effort for all parties and governments, as first nations will take every opportunity to challenge these provisions.

That testimony, by the way, before the subcommittee was expunged from the subcommittee's report, which the government of course controlled and basically wrote at the committee level.

We did not hear from any railway companies, even though Bill C-38 would increase their share of costs for railway crossings by 500%. The government did not allow us enough time to conduct a proper study of this bill.

The finance committee heard from only one witness on the issue of the changes to the oversight of Canada's spy agency, outside of government officials. That was Paul Kennedy, a former senior assistant deputy minister at public safety, responsible for national security activities and former chief counsel to CSIS, who called these changes to CSIS “sheer insanity”.

The finance committee only heard from one witness on the changes to parole hearings who described the changes as unconstitutional. The Canadian Bar Association also wrote to the finance committee to warn us that these changes in Bill C-38 were unconstitutional.

Many of the witnesses we did hear from were overwhelmed by the sheer volume of the changes in the bill. Tyler Sommers of Democracy Watch told the committee:

I don't think that anyone, to the best of their abilities, could represent their constituents when there's a 500-page bill that affects virtually every aspect of Canadian society.

The issue here is not just the length of the bill; it is the breadth of the bill and the number of sweeping changes that are totally unrelated. The reality is we have an environment committee with members of Parliament, with expertise in the environment. We have an aboriginal northern affairs committee with members of Parliament, with an expertise in that area.

If we broke down this bill and not only enabled individual legislators at the committee to study the changes and the legislation in separate bills, but ultimately to vote on them, we would actually be respecting democracy and we would be respecting Parliament. However, the Prime Minister is not interested in that.

In terms of some of the changes on old age security and EI, the government is targeting some of the most vulnerable Canadians. Old age security changes are being rushed through. The Conservatives are saying that we should not to worry, that they will not take effect for 11 years and that if people are 53 years old, they can start saving more money. For goodness sake, 40% of Canadians make less than $20,000 per year. How are they supposed to save money on that? Who gets OAS? The reality is that 40% of the people getting OAS make $20,000 a year or less and 53% make less than $25,000 a year.

This is targeting Canada's most vulnerable. It is an affront to democracy and it is an affront to Canada's most vulnerable who will pay a price for this neo-conservative agenda, which is not well thought out and is an attack on some of Canada's lowest-income people, an attack on rural Canada and an attack on Atlantic Canada.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question about division 19 of part 4 of Bill C-38, which reduces government transparency when it comes to food safety by giving the minister the power to get around the law.

I would like to know how Canadians can be sure that what they eat will be monitored, checked and compliant so that they do not get sick and they do not have to sue certain companies because they or their children get sick.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that question very much.

I share the hon. member's concerns. A reduction in government accountability for food safety is a very serious issue. This is another case where the government is making potentially very significant, negative or dangerous changes without involving experts or hearing their testimony.

I agree completely with my colleague on that.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague recently wrote an excellent article in the Halifax Chronicle Herald about the issue of income disparity across Canada. How does he feel the bill will effect that problem, which is a real problem across the country?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, that is an important question because income inequality is a growing issue in Canada. It is important to say that this is not a partisan issue. It has grown over the last 30 years under different governments of different political stripes. Provincially, governments from the Parti Québécois to NDP, Liberal and Conservative, the issue of income inequality is not a partisan issue and we ought not approach it as such. I am concerned about certain measures in the budget, particularly around OAS, because they will hurt some of Canada's most vulnerable citizens, the lowest income citizens.

There have been some measures over the years which both Liberal and Conservative governments have put in place that have actually helped on the issue of income inequality, helping people get over the welfare wall. I will cite one.

In the fall of 2005, in the last mini budget of the Liberal government, we introduced something called the working income tax benefit. We were defeated a few months later, in January. However, the Conservatives brought the working income tax benefit back. I believe that tax benefit helps people get over the welfare wall. That is an example where two governments of different political stripes both believed in the working income tax benefit. That tax benefit can actually help address the issue of income inequality and barriers to progress faced by low-income Canadians. That is an example of the kind of best practice where we can work together across party lines in the House.

On Wednesday night, I believe we are looking at 5:30 p.m. for the vote on my private member's motion on income inequality. It simply calls for the House of Commons finance committee to study the issue and report back to the House on not only the causes of income inequality but also some of the measures that can potentially help it, including best practice models and policy ideas from other countries, to address the issue. I certainly hope we see a good level of support from all parties for the bill. It is a good opportunity for us to work together on an important issue.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege, as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, to speak on behalf of the people of my riding to Bill C-38, the budget implementation act, which speaks to the economic action plan for 2012, Canada's blueprint for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

As has been stated elsewhere, under our current Prime Minister, Canada can fairly claim to be the best governed country among advanced democracies in the world. This year's federal budget would lock up Canada's lead.

I have listened very carefully to the comments made by the official opposition with regard to the legislation. What I found, and this is reflected in the comments I have received from my constituents who have followed the debate around the legislation, is that Canadians support the legislation, the efforts of our government to provide steady leadership on the economy.

There is a difference between questions about legislation, as opposed to opposition just for the sake of opposing.

As a member of this government, I am pleased to respond with facts. The fact is that Canada is the envy of the world during this time of turbulence in international markets. As an example, the budget comments put forth by the radical left-wing leader of the opposition is the disingenuous argument that Canada should not be exporting energy in the form of unrefined hydrocarbons. Confusingly, the other members of the opposition coalition suggest we should be refining bitumen from the oil sands here in Canada.

Therefore, quite apart from their real position in that they oppose any resource extraction whatsoever, they know that under the current regulatory regime the likelihood that environmental approval within a reasonable time frame occurring is absolutely nil.

The proper role of government is to allow for science-based decision making that is based upon facts. Bill C-38 would restore the balance to a regulatory bureaucracy that has become counterproductive to the environment and to the interests of all Canadians.

Canadians will never accept the opposition inspired left-wing voodoo economics precisely because what it proposes for the environment will destroy Canada's economy.

We believe that we can help the environment without destroying jobs. This is why I absolutely believe that Parliament needs to pass the legislation as quickly as possible so the Government of Canada can get on with the business of providing jobs, growth and economic prosperity to all Canadians.

What the opposition needs to focus on are the benefits the legislation would bring to our economy. Nowhere is that more important than in my home province of Ontario. The province of Ontario was once the undisputed economic engine of Canada. This is now disputed because the manufacturing sector in Ontario is suffering, not because of some ill-conceived NDP notion about some disease that is intended to confuse and divide, but because of the policies of the Liberal Party of Ontario that have taken away one of the primary advantages that built Ontario: economic, affordable power.

The province of Ontario has siphoned off tens of millions of dollars out of the pockets of Ontario energy users, particularly from households and our manufacturing base, resulting in a hollowing out of Ontario's once vibrant manufacturing sector. This is causing severe economic hardship among seniors and anyone else on a fixed income. It is causing the decline of Ontario's manufacturing sector and the jobs in that sector, not of some disease theory that has no relevance to our made in Canada experiences.

In the Ottawa Valley, which is a net exporter of energy, we have first-hand knowledge of Ontario's controversial so-called green energy act. Rather than generate clean hydroelectricity, we watched the province of Ontario spill water over the Ottawa River power damns.

Ontario taxpayers pay American states millions of dollars to take our power. The province calls this negative wholesale electricity pricing. Most terrible of all, this situation is expected to get much worse as more hugely expensive, heavily taxpayer subsidized industrial wind turbines are being forced onto rural Ontario residents every day.

The time has come to stop this environmental madness.

In the last election, Canadians voted for our vision of Canada as a clean energy superpower. Building an economic strategy on a natural resources foundation is good for our economy and good for jobs. This strategy was good for Ontario in the past and is good for Ontario now and in the future. The time has come to move forward and take advantage of Canada's economic action plan.

Canada's economic action plan will provide $107 million over the next two years to maintain safe and reliable operations at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited's Chalk River Laboratories . The Chalk River Laboratories of AECL, in collaboration with the National Research Council, have been actively involved in the development of clean, safe energy.

There is a strategic overlap between nuclear science and hydrogen technologies. Hydrogen and electricity are the only known forms of energy that offer zero emissions from motor vehicles. The challenge with using hydrogen as a fuel is not the burning of the fuel, as it burns very cleanly, with pure water as a byproduct, but the process to produce the hydrogen. A next generation nuclear reactor is one that generates electricity and processes heat with hydrogen as a byproduct.

Hydrogen can be generated from energy supplied in the form of heat electricity through high temperature electrolysis, HTE. Since some of the energy in HTE is supplied in the form of heat, less of the energy must be converted from heat to electricity and then to chemical form, so potentially far less energy is required per kilogram of hydrogen produced. While nuclear-generated electricity could be used for electrolysis, nuclear heat can be directly applied to split the hydrogen from water. Working at 950ºC to 1000ºC, high temperature gas-cooled nuclear reactors have the potential to split hydrogen from water by thermochemical means, using nuclear heat. Research by Chalk River Laboratories into high temperature nuclear reactors will eventually lead to a hydrogen supply that is cost-competitive as well as reliable.

Rather than paying other jurisdictions to take electricity or spilling water over the hydro dams, Ontario could be producing low-cost hydrogen today to power public transit. The Ottawa Valley has all the building blocks to start the hydrogen economy and the green energy jobs that go with it. The New Flyer bus company, with its maintenance facilities in Arnprior, is currently involved in a hydrogen-powered bus pilot project with financial assistance from the Government of Canada in British Columbia.

Ontario, with our natural advantages to develop the hydrogen economy, should be undertaking a similar pilot project in this province. Ottawa River power dams can provide electricity to power electrolysis as a cost-effective method to make hydrogen.

The Chalk River nuclear research labs are involved in cutting-edge activities such as developing hydrogen storage applications that are safe, reliable and economical. Nuclear energy is currently the only large-scale zero greenhouse gas-emitting source of electricity in Ontario that is not limited by geography or weather. Nuclear energy has helped Ontario reduce greenhouse gas emissions safely and competitively for over four decades. CANDU reactors have a unique Canadian design and an excellent safety record, and they can fuel with uranium or thorium. Nuclear energy could provide us decades, if not centuries, of time to find ways to generate more of our energy needs from affordable renewable sources or perhaps nuclear fusion at some point in the future.

According to the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers, using nuclear generation to back up the variability of wind generation is uniquely available to Ontario because 55% of Ontario's power requirements are supplied by nuclear power plants.

Ontario needs Bill C-38 passed now so that we can start to deliver on the benefits of this legislation to the people of this province, and in doing so we help the rest of Canada.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, we wonder whether this is about natural resources or Bill C-38. That said, tonight we have heard some rather alarming things. I heard two Conservative members go after both the Liberal and NDP opposition leaders. We were called communists and leftists and were accused of being a left-wing party. I just heard a speech that had more to do with natural resources than with Bill C-38. What is going on here?

I have a question for the member about Bill C-38, a bill that destroys everything in its path.

If the government is going after seasonal workers, as well as fisheries, agriculture, the forestry industry and tourism, what can provinces that make a living off these industries do to survive in the Canada of the future?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will answer the first part of that convoluted, non-directional question, which was how Bill C-38 and my speech relate to the subject at hand.

As power costs increase, the manufacturing sector moves out of Canada, and with it move jobs. Bill C-38 is all about jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. The Government of Canada has put the requirements in place so that the entire country can take advantage of it.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, at the beginning of her speech, my hon. colleague talked about the government's economic record. I wonder if it bothers her that the government took office with the largest surplus of any government coming into office in Canadian history, a $13 billion surplus; increased spending by 20%, three times the rate of inflation, over the next three years; and put Canada into deficit by April and May of 2008, six months before the recession began.

Second, how does she feel about the government's failure to commit to take any steps toward a new research reactor at Chalk River?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Canadian government is leading the G8 in terms of our economy. Since forming government, we have consistently paid down the deficit and debt. As a consequence, when the global economic downturn occurred in 2008, we were well positioned to stave off and weather the downturn.

The deficit that we are currently tackling is as a consequence of the stimulus that was provided during that time, stimulus that the opposition wanted to force the government out of office on if we did not take it. Any deficit that we are experiencing is as a consequence of the Liberal government forcing this upon the Canadian people.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know the member comes from a rural riding. I want her to comment on how the changes with respect to the Fisheries Act would allow DFO to focus on critical fish habitats while allowing farmers to go about their business by not having to worry about, for example, cleaning drains. Would she comment on that?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is an issue not only for farmers and individuals but for municipalities as well. They would be ordered by the Ministry of the Environment to clear out their culverts. When they started to do so, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans would come around, spot a minnow and stop them immediately. Then they had to wait for permits. As a consequence, they ended up not meeting deadlines and having to pay more fines.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Madam Speaker, I gave a controversial statement last week right here on the floor of the House of Commons that made the national news and the talk of the town back home in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Although I had to later apologize for some unparliamentary language contained in that statement, which you, Madam Speaker, are familiar with, the sentiments were dead on the money. The sentiments were the opinions of my constituents, who are always right. The sentiments were direct quotes that I wrote down during a town hall meeting earlier this month in my riding of St. John's South--Mount Pearl, a town hall meeting called to discuss this Trojan Horse budget bill, a bill that is going over like a lead weight in Newfoundland and Labrador and across this country.

The controversial statement I gave last week was a top-five list of the best quotes from that town hall meeting. I intend to go over each of those five quotes, but members need not worry, because I will modify the unparliamentary language in one of those quotes to make it parliamentary, and then I will expand on each of those points.

Let me start with the number five quote. I will work my way down.

This is the number five quote, and it is in reference to various cutbacks in search and rescue:

It will come to the point where a mariner will be asked, “Are you up to your neck in water yet? No? All right, you're good, call back when it gets there.”

That quote came from Merv Wiseman, recently retired as a rescue coordinator at the now closed marine rescue sub-centre in St. John's. Merv worked in search and rescue for more than three decades. He knows what he is talking about. Ironically, Merv Wiseman, who has drilled the Conservative government for its cuts every chance he can get, is also the same former federal Conservative candidate who ran against me in the 2008 federal election.

This omnibus budget bill—or, as some people back home like to call it, this ominous Trojan Horse bill—amounts to a gutting of what is left of DFO's stomach—science, research, search and rescue, all gutted.

In recent days, DFO announced that Canadian Coast Guard search and rescue vessel, the Harp, which was stationed in St. Anthony on Newfoundland's northern peninsula, will be decommissioned as a direct result of this ominous budget bill.

Last week six fisheries offices were closed in Newfoundland and Labrador, also as a direct result of this budget. The offices were in the communities of Trepassey, Arnold's Cove, Burgeo, Roddickton, Rigolet and L'Anse-au-Loup.

Last week I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to travel with me to those outports to look the people directly impacted in the eye and explain to them how job losses and shutdowns are going to somehow make the fisheries better. I wanted the minister to explain to the people, and explain to me, how they will be able to regulate the fisheries with no local offices. I say, and the people I represent say, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador say, there is no explanation.

What the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want to hear is why the Conservative government is abandoning them. Good luck with that.

Other cuts to search and rescue include the recent shutdown of the marine rescue sub-centre in my riding of St. John's South--Mount Pearl, with distress calls now rerouted to Halifax and Ontario, where there is a problem with language.

Some people have a problem understanding Newfoundland and Labrador's unique dialect or dialects, because the dialect varies from cove to cove. There is also a problem with understanding Newfoundland and Labrador's geography. Mainlanders often do not get us. Merv Wiseman says that will lead to the death of mariners. We cannot get a stronger statement than that. These cuts will lead to the death of mariners. People will die on the water because of these budget cuts.

His quote about it getting to the point where a mariner will be asked, “Are you up to your neck in water yet?”, and to “call back when it gets there” may sound flippant, but there is truth in it. It is almost to that point. The water is rising. The Conservative government knows the water is rising and the Conservative government does nothing.

The number four quote was in reference to the attack on Atlantic Canada. “Perhaps we're paranoid, but that doesn't mean they're not out to get us”, said Earle McCurdy, president of the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union, the largest fishermen's union in Newfoundland and Labrador. McCurdy added up all the various aspects of the ominous bill that are detrimental to Newfoundland and Labrador, including the cuts to DFO, the cuts to search and rescue, the changes to employment insurance, a reduction of air surveillance outside the 200-mile limit that keeps an eye on foreign trawlers in international waters, as well as the possible elimination of fleet separation and owner operator policies, which would kill off the traditional inshore small-boat fishery. He said when we start adding all that up and then recall how the Prime Minister described us as having a culture of defeat, it is fair to say that maybe the Conservatives do have it out for the east coast, that they do have it out for the Atlantic provinces, that they do have it out for Newfoundland and Labrador and payback for former premier Danny Williams' “anybody but Conservative” campaign.

I have news for the members. The only talk of defeat in the Atlantic provinces, despite what the Prime Minister says, is in reference to the Conservative government. People want the Conservatives brought down. They want the Conservatives and the Prime Minister defeated. That is the only talk of defeat where I come from.

The number three quote was in reference to environment legislation. “Less science equals less knowledge. It's basically like driving with the lights off”, said Chris Hogan. He is the executive director of the Newfoundland and Labrador Environment Network. A full one-third of this massive 421-page, ominous, Trojan Horse budget bill is dedicated to environmental deregulation. The ominous budget would rip the word “habitat” right out of the Fisheries Act, cutting to the chase. Removing “habitat” would mean that if a fish does not have what is deemed to be economic value, it would be destroyed to make way for a pipeline or a mine. Fish would have even less value than they do today, if that is possible, and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the federal cabinet would have even more power.

How scary is that? I heard the Minister of Public Safety say in this House today that the New Democrats would be worried if a single minnow were killed. Under successive Conservative and Liberal governments, commercial stocks such as cod, flounder, capelin, herring and on and on, have all been battered, beaten and decimated, one stock after another. I would not trust the Conservative government's Minister of Public Safety with a goldfish.

The government argues that all legislation contained within this Trojan Horse bill is to the economic benefit of the country. However, jamming so many major critical changes into a single bill means the proposed changes are not getting the scrutiny they require. I say the Conservatives are out to try to get one past Canadians.

The number two quote from my town hall meeting is this. “This Prime Minister isn't my Prime Minister. He's the CEO of corporate Canada and his cabinet are the board of directors”, came from Ken Kavanagh, head of the Northeast Avalon Regional Economic Development Board. Under this ominous budget bill, development boards such as that one would lose their funding, funding that was provided by the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. ACOA often goes where the chartered banks fear to tread. Add the development board funding to the list of items that make us paranoid that the Conservative government is out to get us, the growing list.

The number one quote—

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Time has elapsed. Perhaps the hon. member will have an opportunity, but I would remind the hon. member that he cannot say indirectly what he cannot say directly.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague opposite about the number one quote I got from my town hall, which was, “Why does the NDP leader want to give pink slips to the hundreds of thousands of people who work in the energy sector?” Why does he want to pit workers in one sector of the economy against others?

I would ask my colleague opposite why he will not support the energy sector and why he will not support the measures that are so common sense to support the long-term growth and prosperity and protect the long-term sustainability of our social programs here in this country.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Madam Speaker, if the hon. member would like to invite me to her riding to speak to these people at her town hall, I would do it any day.

If it were not for the energy sector and the jobs in Alberta the hon. member speaks about, where I come from in rural Newfoundland and Labrador where our fisheries have been decimated, as I mentioned in my speech, would have sunk a long time ago.

What is happening in this country is that the Conservative government has lost the balance between the environment and business. Everything is at the expense of the environment. There has to be balance. The Conservatives have lost it.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Madam Speaker, I will ask my hon. colleague a question I asked of a government member earlier tonight and I did not get an answer because it was obvious there was not a full understanding or an appreciation for the issue.

With respect to the appeal boards, with the changes to EI that the minister is proposing, the regional appeal boards would go by the wayside and we would end up with just one mechanism for people to appeal, and they would have to do it online instead of that face-to-face opportunity where they really get to make their case.

What would that mean for people on EI? What would it mean for members of Parliament? What would it mean for families who have to rely on the appeal mechanism that would now be taken away from them?

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Madam Speaker, the short answer is this. The loss of the appeal boards would mean that more people would obviously lose their appeals. More people would be forced off employment insurance.

I was asked another similar question last week by the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. He asked me whether or not there is an agenda by this Conservative government to force what people are left in rural parts of the country, in rural parts of Atlantic Canada, in rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, out of the rural areas, be it with the possible elimination of owner-operator fleet separation policies, which would kill the traditional inshore fishery, or be it with the changes to EI. The bottom line answer is yes; there is an agenda by the Conservative government to force out what people we have left in rural Canada. There is an agenda.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the hon. member's comments. I would like to ask him about the changes to 70 pieces of legislation that would happen with this omnibus bill.

However, I am on the edge of my seat. I want to hear the number one quote at his town hall meeting.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question, but as the Speaker pointed out earlier, I cannot say indirectly what I said directly in that statement for the number one quote.

It was basically something to the effect that the Prime Minister does not really understand Newfoundland and Labrador. He does not understand the issues of Atlantic Canada. He views Atlantic Canada as having a culture of defeat.

As I said in my speech, the only talk of defeat in my province, in Atlantic Canada, is defeat of this government in 2015.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Madam Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise tonight in support of Bill C-38, jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act.

Our government has been very clear that jobs and economic growth are our top priorities, the same today as when we were first elected in 2006. In fact, nearly 760,000 net new jobs have been created since July 2009, and 90% of those are full-time jobs. Our most recent budget reflects this.

In the words of Canadian Chamber of Commerce president Perrin Beatty:

We have urged the government to focus on where Canada needs to be five or 10 years from now, even if it means taking tough decisions now. The government has acted.... The result will be a stronger economy and more jobs.

That is what the budget implementation legislation before us today is all about. It is about ensuring that our economy continues to create dependable jobs and a high quality of life today and for the future.

To talk a little about the context of the bill, there is fragility on the global economic scene. We cannot deny that Europe is certainly in a debt crisis right now. As many Canadians know, one can only spend more than one makes for so long. We are seeing that in Europe right now, which is why our government has taken strong actions to move to balance our books while putting in policy that would ensure the long-term economic prosperity of this country.

In fact, as I mentioned earlier, our country has created more than 760,000 net new jobs since the financial downturn. The IMF has praised the stability of our financial sector. The OECD has praised us for our leadership in economic development and growth. We have also been called one of the best places to do business in the world.

We now have the opportunity to set the ball in motion to cement Canada's golden age on the world stage for years to come. This is especially important for people my age, younger, contemporaries and the children of my colleagues here in the House tonight.

We have the opportunity to ensure that Canada is that world leader for decades to come, which is what the bill is about. It is about that long-term prosperity, creating jobs and growth while ensuring that our financial house is kept in order. This is one of the unifying themes of the bill.

Why is the bill so urgent?

In Europe, we can see what happens if there are no financial policies in place to spur long-term economic growth. In fact, in Canada, one of the things we have been talking about here with my colleagues is the need to have stable funding to ensure the long-term stability of our social programs that we all hold dear, across the aisle here and around the House.

How do we do that?

We feel that the policies put forward in the bill would set that ball in motion, ensure that long-term prosperity and also ensure our books are balanced in the long term.

I would like to speak a little about the responsible resource development component of Bill C-38, in particular the environmental components.

It might surprise some of my colleagues opposite that, being from Alberta, I care deeply about Canada's natural heritage. Certainly my fellow Albertans would say how important the beauty of Banff National Park and the wilderness of Canada's boreal forests are to them. This is our brand, and it is important to our health and well-being. It is something I have had the privilege of hearing about in my last year of elected office. Our government does feel we can have that balance, as my colleague opposite spoke about earlier, between environmental protection and economic growth.

In fact, as part of the bill, there are numerous measures that we put in place to strengthen environmental protection, about which I have not heard any of my colleagues opposite speak. We are focusing environmental assessments on major projects that have greater potential for significant adverse environmental effects.

The Commissioner of the Environment, in testimony at our subcommittee that reviewed this particular component of Bill C-38, spoke about how 99% of the reviews that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency conducts are what we call screenings on small projects, and 94% of those, in his words and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency's words, have little to no environmental impact. This means that our major oversight body for doing environmental reviews is spending time on things like reviewing the expansion of a maple sugar bush plant or adding a park bench in a Canadian national park.

To counter that, we are trying to ensure that our resources dedicated to reviewing environmental assessments are spent on major projects that have significant environmental impact. The commissioner of the environment, in his testimony before that committee, agreed that those resources currently spent on environmental assessments with limited environmental impact could be better spent on major proposals.

For the first time we would be introducing enforceable environmental assessment decisions under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. This means that proponents of major projects would have to comply with conditions set out in the decision statements or perhaps face tough financial penalties. We would require follow-up programs after all environmental assessments to verify the accuracy of predictions regarding potential environmental effects and to determine if mitigation measures were working as intended.

I could go on and on, but I notice that my time is quickly elapsing. I want to talk about why it is important that we also focus on developing our natural resources in a sustainable way. The importance of our natural resources is well known in my riding of Calgary Centre-North. Their impact is felt from coast to coast. I feel a kinship with my colleague opposite who talked about how some of the people in his riding have seen the impacts of that. That is something we could all agree on.

However there are some statistics I want to talk about specifically with regard to the energy sector. New oil sands development is expected to contribute over $2.1 trillion 2010 dollars to the Canadian economy over the next 25 years. The oil sands alone will pay an estimated $766 billion in provincial and federal taxes, and provincial royalties over the next 25 years. That is our health care system. That is our OAS system. Those revenues will directly go to funding our social programs here in this country. I agree that we need to talk about how those resources are developed sustainably. That is why we have put things in place like the oil sands monitoring framework. That is why we are working with provincial governments and talking about things like land use planning.

There was something I wanted to highlight that blew my mind a bit. It happened in the subcommittee with someone I respect and have had meetings with, Mr. Stephen Hazell, a well-respected environmental lawyer.

He made a comment, and I am not sure if it was tongue-in-cheek or not. I want to read the testimony into the record. I said to him, “You made a comment that was something to the effect of 'I saved Exxon $1 billion, but they are not likely to thank me for it.'” This was with regard to the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline project. I asked, “Could you walk me through the line of thinking on that again?”

I encourage my colleagues opposite to read this testimony. At the end of it, the point he was trying to make was that, with the delay and the long EA process, the price of gas went from $6 to approximately $2. The project was no longer viable. Therefore, he saved the company money.

The point I wanted to make was that is not how we do business in this country. We support industry and free market principles. Business should be able to take risks. While it is absolutely true that we need to protect the environment and make sure that our environmental assessment process is robust, we also need to make sure that there is timeliness and predictability so that project proponents can ensure that the process is factored into their business decisions.

Few people talk about the window-to-market concept. For major resource projects that are very capital intensive, there is a timeline in which the project may or may not be viable.

We need to make sure as regulators that we ensure robustness in process. I feel very strongly that this is included in the new review process. We also have a duty to ensure that those processes are completed in a set period of time so that there can be predictability around planning for that window to market.

That is a principle that I hope we can just take the tone down a little bit and have a reasonable dialogue on. A strong national resource sector and energy sector is important to this economy. I agree that we need to have that strong environmental protection component, but that is locked into this process.

The opposition parties are talking about bailing out Europe when we should be talking about how we make our economy strong and prosperous over the next 25 years. Bill C-38 does that. I am so proud to be here in this House tonight with my colleagues to stand in support of it.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Madam Speaker, the member says we should tone down the debate and try to get on with reasonable business just after she completely misrepresented the testimony of one of the witnesses who came before our subcommittee. The witness was making a point tongue-in-cheek, but he was making the point nonetheless. The member, again tonight, spoke in very disrespectful terms about what was said. She did the same thing the night that he appeared before committee. How does the member feel that dealing with witnesses, Canadians who come forward and give us their thoughtful and reasoned opinions, in such a disrespectful manner is in any way toning down debate?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Madam Speaker, while my colleague opposite might have felt it was a tongue-in-cheek comment, this comment was germane to how the opposition has presented the amendments put forward in the bill. Therefore, it is an absolutely valid point to go after. I encourage my colleagues opposite to read that testimony because I think it is very telling.

We are talking about dealing with witnesses. My colleagues opposite have misrepresented the consultation process on this bill so grossly in the media. We have heard from associations that represent over three million workers across the country. We should be respecting them as well.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, a few minutes ago, the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke suggested that the reason we have a deficit now is because of the stimulus spending, and that there was not one until then. I wonder if my hon. colleague agrees with that, in view of the fact that by April and May of 2008, six months before the recession began, this government had put the country back into deficit, that the budget brought down eight or nine months later, in January 2009, was for the 2009-10 fiscal year, which did not start until April 1, 2009. That was a year after the deficit of this government began. Of course, that money did not really go out the door. If we look at the record, we will see that the municipalities were complaining the following summer of 2009 that it still had not started. Really, the stimulus money did not actually start until the fall or late 2009. Therefore, how can the member opposite claim that the deficit was created because of the stimulus spending?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Madam Speaker, the stimulus funding that our government put forward was short-term, targeted and designed to create jobs while creating the infrastructure our country needed. Municipalities across the country lauded the economic action plan funding and we have a legacy of that funding. It did spur jobs and growth.

Regarding his comment about municipalities, our government was the first to make the municipal gas tax transfer payment permanent.

Also, the Liberal Party today tried to give a convoluted answer about why it was great to bail out Europe as opposed to managing our own financial house here in Canada.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was pleased to have the Parliamentary Secretary in my riding, along with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, to hear from the municipalities of Chilliwack, Hope, Kent and Harrison Hot Springs. While we were there we discussed how some of those municipalities were spending more money on environmental consulting than on the works on their drainage ditches to keep the roads open and the fields dry.

The one story I recall was in the city of Chilliwack, where DFO allowed the city to clean one half of a ditch, but it was not allowed to clean the other half. Could she talk about how ridiculous some of these policies are and how this budget will clean some of that up?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-38 contains common sense measures to ensure that the working landscape principle is protected and that fish habitat is still there. However, we also have to ensure that farmers can use their fields.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise again today to speak to Bill C-38, this time at report stage. I made a speech on May 8, 2012, at second reading of this bill. It will be very easy for me to repeat the same points.

I could repeat all of my notes word for word, since this mammoth bill made it through the Standing Committee on Finance in less than a week, and we are now at report stage with the same bill, without amendment.

The government's insistence on pushing through this bill in the face of strong opposition from across the country is, in my opinion, a serious problem. I would like to quickly remind members of some examples of problems that the official opposition has brought up in recent debates on this bill.

Bill C-38 aims to implement budget 2012, but it goes well beyond the budget. It contains not only the measures described in the budget, but also several changes that were not announced previously.

Consider the environment. My colleague opposite was talking about it five minutes ago. At least one-third of Bill C-38 is dedicated to environmental deregulation. It is 2012, and here we have a budget that promotes environmental deregulation. Yes, the government is doing what it said it would in terms of the environment, such as withdrawing from the Kyoto protocol. People did not agree with that, yet the government not only stood its ground, it also added new, previously unannounced measures.

As we all know, Bill C-38 repeals the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, which means that the government is no longer required to report its greenhouse gas emissions. That is a major problem.

Bill C-38 also repeals the current Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, replacing it with a new assessment regime designed for the approval of major projects, such as oil pipelines, naturally. In my opinion and that of all environmental groups and my colleagues, this measure renders all environmental protection regulations utterly meaningless.

Bill C-38 also targets environmental groups. It changes the rules used to determine the extent to which a charity is involved in political activities.

The bill also gives the Minister of National Revenue the authority to suspend the tax-receipting privileges of a registered charity that devotes too many of its resources to political activities. What is the limit here? What exactly defines the political activities of a charitable organization that might sometimes oppose a government measure? Strangely, this attack directly targets groups that oppose the government's ideas. How interesting. Soon the Conservatives will be attacking freedom of expression.

I can also talk about our seniors who worked their whole lives, who worked hard for many years. They will be forced to work two more years before they can retire. I am sure everyone here knows that my party has been opposed to this measure for quite some time. We continue to oppose it and we will not back down.

Bill C-38 also attacks industry and agriculture. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is one of a number of agencies that will be excluded from the Auditor General's supervision. The bill eliminates all references to the Auditor General in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act. The government is giving itself yet another power.

For instance, the part of the act that was once called “Accounting and Audit” will henceforth be called simply “Accounting”. Talk about transparency.

Mandatory financial and performance audits by the Auditor General have also been eliminated—another excellent example of transparency.

I could go on and on. Bill C-38 also 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.

This change opens the door to allowing private entrepreneurs to do food inspection-related work. It also sends a troublesome message about the growing use of privatization. In other words, the rich might get access to safe food, but the government does not seem to care what everyone else gets. That is the message I am hearing.

The Canadian Medical Association Journal has been highlighting the loopholes in our food safety system for a long time and has warned that Canadians will be eating at their own risk, which is serious.

The NDP has held a series of public consultations across Canada to listen to the comments and concerns of Canadians. On June 2, I personally invited people from my riding to share their concerns and to ask questions. Representatives from Mouvement Action Chômage; the president of the local chapter of the Union des producteurs agricoles, the UPA; and the president of the Conseil québécois de l'horticulture joined the panel of guest speakers.

Mouvement Action Chômage is particularly concerned about the changes to employment insurance. We have been talking about it for several weeks. However, the government does not seem very open. The NDP is worried about seasonal workers who will have to broaden their job searches and work for less, down to 70% of their current salary. SMEs will be affected by these measures and it will be hard for them to provide their employees with enough hours, to retain their employees and to train them properly.

For a riding like mine, these changes will have considerable repercussions on the availability of qualified labour, which is also a problem. As I have said, the SMEs will have to pay the costs.

It is also interesting to point out that the SMEs represent a significant percentage of the jobs in Canada. If we want people to have jobs, it is important to help those who provide them--SMEs, for example--but that does not seem to be logical for this government.

In agriculture, the UPA local in Montérégie has complained about the repercussions of the cuts on the region. In eastern Montérégie, of which my riding is part, the growing forward program represents 47% of agricultural income in Quebec. It will not be just my riding that is affected; Quebec will be affected too.

There are also repercussions on research and on the development of new types of agriculture. Canada is a highly agricultural country and my constituency is especially so. Many constituents have asked questions about agriculture. One of them also asked me what would happen with the aboriginal communities in the north. There is nothing in the budget for them. For Attawapiskat, for example, the government has done nothing, and is still not doing anything.

I also remind the House that the budget contained nothing about housing and homelessness. Even though all these measures will plunge more Canadians deeper into poverty, there is nothing to help them.

Canadians are afraid of this bill, a monster bill. People in my riding have realized that the government has very, very loose parliamentary rules. People are not stupid; they know that they still have the power and that public pressure can make a government back down. The government is fully aware that, in less than four years, it will have to be accountable to all Canadians. If the government continues to lose the confidence of the people, they will not give it a second chance.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to ask the hon. parliamentary secretary a question, but I will instead ask my colleague because she raised some very legitimate doubts about environmental protection.

When the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment gives us statistics on the expansion of the oil sands, we have a problem. When the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment tells us about large oil companies, we have a problem. We have a very big problem here. We are seeing where this government's priorities lie.

During her 10-minute speech, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment barely spoke about environmental protection. However, she did speak about the interests of oil companies and the oil sands. It is totally absurd.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about the government's utter lack of transparency and willingness to protect the environment.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her very intelligent question.

Indeed, I find it very absurd that the hon. member is not at all concerned about real environmental protection and the conservation of our environment, which is of paramount importance to Canada. Instead, the hon. member is concerned about the interests of large corporations and big oil companies.

That is a real problem, especially since environmental groups are being attacked here, when they have been doing an outstanding job for years with very limited resources. They do a lot with a little. Those groups are being attacked and large corporations are getting a hand up. That is a bit illogical, and it is very disturbing.

I do not have any children yet, but when I di, I intend to leave them a healthy country and planet. That is not what is currently happening with our government. I am particularly concerned about that.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for her insightful and very interesting discussion.

I want to ask her if she has been to the oil sands and if not, whether she is planning on going to the oil sands.

I think that if every member here were to actually go out and visit things, they would get a different perspective. We often speak in ignorance. I just want to know, has she actually been to the oil sands to see them first-hand?

The second part of my question is this. Why is the NDP actually filibustering and trying to keep the government from moving forward and doing positive things for the environment? That is exactly what the parliamentary secretary wanted to do. Indeed, we want to create that wonderful balance so that we have jobs and a healthy environment.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

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

My answer to him is that I also invite him to come visit my riding so that he understands the reality of agricultural workers, the reality of agriculture in my riding. That would be very interesting. Perhaps we should also go to the riding of the hon. member who spoke previously to meet the fishermen who are seasonal workers. It might be an interesting experience to finally expand our horizons a little.

No, I have never visited the oil sands, but I would be more than happy to go if the hon. member invites me.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate so much this opportunity to highlight some of the very important initiatives in the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act, and to underline why we cannot let the NDP and the opposition more generally delay and defeat this important legislation.

Over the last few weeks we have seen the extreme left-wing ideology of the opposition members, not only in terms of their negative attitude toward such an important industry in Canada as our energy sector, but also most recently in the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition, as well as the leader of the third party, in their ridiculous idea of pumping millions and billions of dollars of good money after bad into Europe. Canadians are seeing the reality and the left-wing socialist ideology behind both opposition parties.

Let me begin by reassuring Canadians that unlike the NDP opposition, our Conservative government is focused on the economy, jobs and growth. While the opposition is looking at delay and conducting partisan games, we are focused on implementing economic policies that increase the prosperity and the well-being of Canadians.

Let me quote a recent Toronto Sun editorial for the benefit of the House. This is about what Canadians are saying about the NDP and the opposition delaying tactics. It states: “As Europe stands poised on the brink of a disastrous economic wildfire that could blacken the world, NDP leader['s] hypocrisy and self-obsession is in full flame....vowing to delay the passing of [the budget] by playing silly...with amendments and procedure.... This is nothing but grandstanding.... Right now, there is only one enemy in our fight to protect Canada from the repercussions of Europe's burning. And it's [the NDP leader].... This is inarguable.”

Indeed, since 2006, our government has supported the security and prosperity of Canadians and promoted business and investment to create jobs. When the global financial and economic crisis struck, these underlying strengths helped Canada to avoid a deep and long-lasting recession. Our government's sound fiscal position prior to the crisis provided the flexibility to launch the stimulus phase of Canada's economic action plan, which was timely, targeted and temporary in order to have maximum impact. This plan was one of the strongest responses to the global recession among the Group of Seven countries. The broad-based business tax reductions are reducing the costs of operating in Canada, making investment here more attractive, thereby encouraging firms to invest more in all sectors of the Canadian economy. This is increasing wages, creating jobs and raising the standard of living for Canadians. Along with our strong fiscal position, the solid banking system, and sound monetary policy, we believe that this approach to encouraging investment is the best way to improve the productivity of our businesses and indeed the prosperity of all Canadians.

However, we also have been clear. We believe that all Canadians should pay their fair share of taxes and not use loopholes to avoid their taxes. That is why our government has closed over 40 tax loopholes in recent years to improve the fairness and integrity of the tax system. The jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act takes further action on this front by modifying the penalty for making unreported tax shelter sales, to better match the penalty to the purported tax savings of the unreported tax shelter.

We understand that taxpayers willingly and honestly provide a portion of their hard-earned income to fund health care, social programs and other vital services that benefit all Canadians, demanding only in return that governments manage their tax dollars wisely and that their taxes be kept low. For our government, this is a solemn responsibility that we take very seriously. We understand fully that sustaining a voluntary tax system rests on the foundation of tax fairness.

In that context, and as part of the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act, I would like to spotlight the improvements that we are making to enhancing transparency and accountability for charities. I think I can speak on behalf of my riding of Portage—Lisgar as one of the highest givers to charities. It is also one of the strongest Conservative ridings in the country, voting with a 76% plurality. It is quite interesting that in a very strong Conservative riding, Conservatives are willing to give back and willing to give to charity. They are not looking to the government and they are not looking to taxpayers to give to charities: they take out of their own pocketbooks. I would challenge socialists and NDPers to do the same thing.

Our government recognizes the invaluable role that charities play in communities across Canada. Canada has one of the largest charitable and non-profit sectors in the world, with more than 160,000 charities and non-profit organizations that help address some of the most daunting challenges that Canada faces.

Tax support for registered charities in Canada is considered to be among the most generous in the world, and that is important because there are so many great charities in Canada that do excellent work and they do that excellent work because of the generosity of Canadians.

Registered charities are exempt from tax on their income and may issue official donation receipts for gifts received. In turn, donors can use those receipts to reduce their taxes by claiming a charitable donation tax credit for individuals or charitable donations tax deduction for corporations.

In 2011, federal tax assistance for the charitable sector was nearly $3 billion. However, when Canadians give their hard-earned dollars to a charity they need to be confident that their donation is being put to good use.

Recently, concerns have been raised that some charities may not be respecting the rules regarding political activities. There have also been calls for greater public transparency related to the political activities of charities, including the extent to which they may be funded by foreign sources. Accordingly, to enhance charities' compliance with the rules with respect to political activities, economic action plan 2012 proposes that the CRA enhance its education and compliance activities with respect to political activities by charities. The plan also proposes to improve transparency by requiring charities to provide more information on their political activities, including the extent to which these are funded by foreign sources.

In addition, the plan proposes that the Income Tax Act be amended to restrict the extent to which charities may fund the political activities of other qualified donors, and again, an important aspect of our charitable donation system. Canadian taxpayers want to ensure that when they are giving these funds that they are not going toward political activity. It also proposes that new sanctions be introduced for charities that exceed the limit on political activities or that fail to provide the Canada Revenue Agency with complete and accurate information with respect to any aspect of their annual return.

These measures will help reassure Canadians that they can give with confidence knowing that donations of their hard-earned dollars are used to support legitimate charities.

Amazingly enough, even Toronto Star columnist, Thomas Walkom, who is no friend of our Conservative government, has voiced support for this provision. He said:

When [the] Prime Minister...says charities that engage in too much politicking should be denied tax subsidies, he’s right.

There’s no good reason why environmental groups that oppose oil pipelines should be able to finance their activities, in part, on the backs of the general taxpayer.

When passed, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act will take action to provide tax relief for numerous health care services, drugs and medical devices. This is good news for Canadians across the country. This will reflect the evolving nature of the health care sector and better meet the health care needs of Canadians.

Specifically, today's legislation before us seeks to exempt from the GST pharmacists' professional services, other than their prescription drug dispensing services, as well as expand the list of medical devices eligible for tax relief under the GST and income tax systems to include blood coagulation monitors.

In my time allotted today I have had the opportunity to touch on just a few of the very important tax measures that are in the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act. I would encourage all members of the House to read the legislation and give it the support it deserves.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to quote an MP, who said the following:

—it has become a standard practice with governments to bring in omnibus legislation following every budget under what we might call the kitchen sink approach....

How can members represent their constituents on these various areas when they are forced to vote in a block on such legislation and on such concerns?

We can agree with some of the measures but oppose others. How do we express our views and the views of our constituents when the matters are so diverse? Dividing the bill into several components would allow members to represent views of their constituents on each of the different components in the bill.

It was, of course, the Prime Minister who said that in 1994, and this is a bigger bill.

My question is about process. Does the member believe in what the Prime Minister said in 1994? How can she get behind a bill like this with the logic of the Prime Minister in 1994, which I agree with, on this approach, which is highly undemocratic?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, we are in 2012. We have just come through one of the greatest recessions that our globe has seen. What Canadians have asked our government to do is to continue to implement a successful economic action plan that has gone from implementing stimulus into the economy to, at this point, reducing the deficit, as well as implementing a number of measures that Canadians have been asking us to do.

I have been hearing in my riding, since and I was elected and before that, people say that we should do something to streamline the Fisheries Act. These are measures that Canadians have asked our government to undertake. The opposition is only concerned with delaying. It is criticizing our oil industry and talking about pouring a lot of money into Europe. We are focused on Canada, on growing our economy and on making our country stronger.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, by April 2008, three years after the government came into office and before the recession began, the country was back in deficit, as my hon. colleague may know. By March 31, 2009, the end of that fiscal year, there was a deficit of $5.8 billion and stimulus spending did not start until later that year. In fact, by June of that year there were articles in which municipalities were complaining that it still had not started.

In view of the fact that the government put us in deficit before the recession began, how much responsibility does she feel her government bears for the cuts that are now resulting?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is very clear from the results of the last election who Canadians put their trust in when it comes to the economy, stimulating the economy and reducing the deficit. That is our Conservative government.

It was very clear that, when the Liberals were in government, their idea of reducing spending was slashing transfers to the provinces. We have done the exact opposite. In fact, we have guaranteed the amount that provinces are receiving, for example, for health care.

We presented a plan to Canadians. Everything that we told Canadians we would do we are doing. Canadians know they can count on this government. When we make a promise, we keep our word. When we campaigned, we met and consulted with Canadians. We said that we had a spending plan that was targeted and temporary. Now we are moving forward, continuing to see jobs, growth and prosperity, but also reducing the deficit. The result is a Conservative majority and the Liberals over there in the third spot.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Madam Speaker, with Bill C-38, when I talk to other members of the House and others who have been around for a while, I feel that we are witnessing a massive transformation of our country as we know it and, unfortunately, it is our future generations who will bear the consequences of these reckless actions today.

We are told that somehow all the budget cuts are necessary in these difficult times. We have the cutting and slashing of the programs that we as Canadians value, and legislation that protects us is also being cut, all this against a backdrop of massive corporate tax cuts.

I would like to remind the members of the House that, between 2006 and 2014, the government will have given over $220 billion worth of corporate tax cuts to the corporations that do not need this money. We can just think about what $220 billion could do for our country.

In addition to that, we have had over $50 billion stolen out of the employment insurance fund. Now, fewer than 60% of those who are eligible receive this money because of the fact that the government wants to make more cuts.

This massive 421-page bill not only contains measures outlined in the budget but also includes many previously unannounced changes. A full one-third of Bill C-38 is dedicated to the gutting of environmental regulations and protection.

In addition, the bill includes a series of previously unannounced measures that will contribute to a less transparent and more secretive environment, including a massive gutting of the powers of the Auditor General.

Among other things, this bill raises the eligibility age for old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits from 65 to 67. It weakens the environmental assessment system and the measures to protect fish habitats, in order to expedite approval of large projects, including pipeline projects.

This bill also repeals the Fair Wages and Hours of Work Act, which will allow employers to circumvent the wage rates set by unions for construction workers hired on projects funded by the federal government.

This is an important point. This was outlined by my colleague, the member of Parliament for Winnipeg Centre, who found this one line in the budget that basically guts the rights of construction workers to have contracts that must pay the prevailing wage. Combine that with other recent Conservative legislation that allows contractors to get temporary foreign workers within 10 days, eradicating fair wages and hours from the laws, it is yet another nail in the coffin of Canadian labour rights.

International brokers or, as my colleague from Winnipeg Centre described them, labour pimps, pedal foreign workers from all over the country for construction projects. What does this mean? Soon, all a company will have to do is post an ad in the paper saying that it wants carpenters for $8 an hour, no overtime and no benefits. In the likely event that nobody applies within 10 days, international labour pimps can be called to provide all the manpower needed at the prevailing provincial minimum wage.

It does not take a lot of imagination to see how such an easy access to cheap labour will drive down construction costs on the backs of Canadian workers in the largest employing industry sector in the country and the trickle down effect this will have on our economy.

I have a few letters that I would like to read into the record that I have received, as all of us have from our constituents. One letter is from Castlegar. A constituent writes:

It therefore is distressing in the extreme to see the Conservative party taken over by a distorted...world view that has more in common with the current state of the Republican Party in the USA than it does with the kind of conservatism practiced over time in Canada. Voter suppression, unlimited power to corporations, the suppression of science and denial of scientific knowledge are not historically Canadian practices....

This is another quote:

I am becoming very disheartened about our country, due to the threats to our democracy...and the potential disasters that could befall our northern coast and rivers if the pipeline is approved.

Please continue fighting this ludicrous project! I spent many years on Haida Gwaii and know the challenges of running boats in those northern waters. Even when things are “normal”, large ships can run aground. It has happened already and will happen again....

The whole tar sands development sickens me, knowing the potential of major environmental disasters and the current contamination of northern rivers. What bothers me most is the ignorance of the Alberta and Canadian governments and their general lack of environmental regulation and monitoring...

He and others are concerned about the fact that we are losing environmental oversight so we can go forward with a balanced plan instead of a one-side plan as is currently projected.

This is another quote:

Bill C-38 is a “trojan horse” bill containing much more than just Budget items. It is bad for the environment, bad for Canada's worldwide image, bad for the social safety net that Canadians WANT, bad for fish, water and all living creatures, and it is bad for democracy. Everything that is not a direct Budget item MUST be split off this Bill and debated properly by the appropriate committees, before the Budget Bill itself is presented to Parliament.

Act democratic--split the Bill to permit study and debate.

This is another quote:

I am concerned about the revision of the Fisheries Act tucked inside the current omnibus bill. I feel these changes threaten the environmental assessment and project implementation process and therefore threaten viable fish habitat throughout Canada. Without viable habitat for fish, interior, coastal and ocean ecosystems will suffer, and so will the economies and cultures that depend on them. I am requesting that you pressure the current government to please reconsider the process under which these changes are being implemented.

I would like to add that this point of view is not only felt by people right across Canada but also by four former cabinet ministers, two of them having served under the Conservative government. They have called the current changes to the Fisheries Act unprecedented and not in the best interest of our country.

The final letter that I have, one of many, says:

The federal budget legislation...puts our land, water and climate at risk by making enormous changes to Canada's environmental laws. It also contains sweeping new powers to limit debate and silence legitimate voices, including those of land owners, First Nations, charities and other Canadians.

I care about nature and democracy, which is why I'm asking you, as my representative in our Parliament, to express my concern about changing Canada's environmental and charitable laws without sufficient public input and Parliamentary debate.

I might add that my party went across the country and we listened to people. We conducted hearings. The overwhelming majority of people who talked to us are saying that something is not right. We should not be supporting this legislation that lumps all of these different pieces of legislation and measures into one act.

I would like to close with part of a speech given by Andrew Nikiforuk in Nelson regarding the tar sands development. These are a couple of quotations from the speech. He says:

The Northern Gateway pipeline will result in 300 to 400 supertankers annually having to negotiate the treacherous waters of BC's northern coastline;

The ships will likely be owned by PetroChina and Sinopec, two companies that are only accountable to the Communist Party of China;

This is where we are sending our raw bitumen if this goes through.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed my hon. colleague's comments about the possible environmental impacts of the budget bill. They are certainly very worrisome.

Would he like to talk about his views in relation to the changes to the old age security program?

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Madam Speaker, I respect my hon. colleague's thoughts and judgment. He is an experienced member of Parliament and he certainly has a point about the old age security.

We have been told that somehow we need to raise the application age to 67 from 65. In fact, studies and responsible people have shown that is not necessary, that we can maintain the level at age 65.

It is quite ironic that at a time when this economic impact is being felt around the world, France is going to actually lower old age security for its citizens, not raising it as we are doing in Canada.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from British Columbia for sharing his insights and also those of his constituents. We come here to represent our constituents. I asked one of the Conservatives earlier for comments on what the Prime Minister had said about representing constituents when he stood up, when he was opposition leader, and said that this was wrong, that this was anti-democratic. We know that one of the B.C. MPs from the government side tried to do the same and represent his constituents and we know what happened there.

This is about the fundamentals of democracy when we have a bill this size and we are asked as parliamentarians to go over it and assure our constituents that we have done everything we can do with due diligence. I would like the member's comments as to what he thinks this is doing to our parliamentary democracy, to representative democracy, and what it is doing to the role of the MP as we ensure we are representing our constituents. What does this bill do to that job?

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ottawa for his very pertinent and wise comments. To answer his question in a nutshell, this is making a mockery of the parliamentary process. This bill is making a mockery of the democratic process, in spite of what those people over there say. They take so much legislation, ram it into over 400 pages of a budget bill then we are told to vote on it and if we do not vote for it, we are somehow not acting in the best interests of Canada. The bill should be split. There should be a discussion on each of the important aspects. Democracy is about that. This is not democracy and we are losing that.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Madam Speaker, what does my colleague think about the fact that the government members talk with such pride about what is in this bill, yet they are not letting Canadians take the time to understand exactly what they are doing with those 70 pieces of legislative change that are being proposed in the bill? What does that say about how proud the Conservatives are of what they are doing?

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Madam Speaker, my immediate reaction is that the Conservatives are not very proud of what they are doing. Otherwise, they would allot time for this.

As I mentioned earlier, when we have four former cabinet ministers, two of the them in the Progressive Conservative Party, who are asking what the Conservatives are doing in the whole area of the Fisheries Act, then something is wrong. These people should be appearing before committees and explaining their view. This should be taken right across the country. None of this is happening and this is totally undemocratic and a threat to our parliamentary system.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to be here to speak in favour of Bill C-38. As I do, I reflect on much of the debate that has gone on, not just tonight, but the constant hours and hours of debate that have gone on in the finance committee. The amount of time that has been allocated to the bill and is still yet to come is unprecedented.

I find as I listen to colleagues opposite, while I have great regard for them, I hear more questions about the process than I do about actual questions about the budget. Therefore, it strikes me that while at one point there is a lot of broad talk about the importance of being able to ensure that we spend more time talking about the budget, it feels more like talking about talking. That is the concern I have.

Members in the House have heard me say in the past a great comment that my Cape Breton mom used to say, “After it's all said and done, there's a lot more said than done”. I really feel in some respects that this is what we have as this circle goes around and around.

In my city of London, in my riding of London West, people are concerned about their families and the economy. I get comments about how the Conservatives have handled that relatively well in the worst recession in all of our lifetimes, not just in the House, but Canadians throughout the country. We weathered that with high marks. We have created some 750,000 jobs, most of them full-time since that time as well. That is positive. We have the strongest financial institutions in the world. We are the envy of the G20 countries.

It would be great if I could ask members opposite to come forward and say that they are proud of this as well because there are some things that we do that we can take pride in as a country. We have those opportunities. There are rare times when members come together in solidarity and say “This is something that matters to us”. We respect the importance of Canadian workers, the people who are trying to do the best they can for their families.

There is a greater optimism now than there has been in some time. There are a lot of countries in the world, tragically, that we are glad we are not there because their tragedy and their stories are very suspect. I think their futures are much more bleak than Canada. I have great optimism for Canada, so I would invite members opposite to share some of that optimism.

I have some formal comments I would like to make because I think that is all part of this process as we try to get into some of the specifics of it.

The bill in front of us, Bill C-38, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act, is intended to bring into force significant measures that we have introduced to ensure the long-term strength and sustainability of Canada's economy and its finances. Despite what others would say, these are measures that are decisive, effective and above all, fair.

It is said that if one wants to anticipate how one acts in the future, then look how they have acted in the past. I am exceptionally pleased and proud of how the government has respected our seniors. One just has to look at some of the incredibly positive benefits the government has provided seniors since coming to government, all to make the point that there is no greater respect than honouring those who have built our country and given us the many opportunities that all of us enjoy today.

I am honoured that our government introduced, then doubled the pension income credits for seniors to $2,000. The most dramatic benefit for married seniors has come in the form of pension income splitting, allowing Canadian seniors who receive qualifying pension income to allocate to their spouse, or common law partner with whom they reside, up to one-half of that income. That is phenomenal.

The government increased the age limit for converting RRSPs to RIFs. The tax-free savings account, or TFSA, is one of the most tax-effective and novel ways for seniors, in fact for all Canadians, to benefit. Canadians currently benefit from a retirement income system that is recognized around the world as a model that succeeds in helping Canadian seniors and we want to keep it that way for future generations.

That is why this bill, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act, would ensure that it remains that way now and, frankly, for generations to come. We took action in this regard because quite simply, the old age security program was designed for a different time.

Let me give some background. Most members of the House will realize this and some will have to read it in the history books because they are a little younger than others. However, we have very bright young members who would get this. In the 1970s there were seven workers for every one person over the age of 65. In 20 years, there will only be two.

In 1970, life expectancy was age 69 for men and age 76 for women. Today, it is age 79 for men and age 83 for women. At the same time, Canada's birth rate is falling.

The good news about these statistics, though, is that Canadians are living longer and healthier lives, but there are fewer workers to take their place when they retire.

Here is the reality: Canada has changed. Therefore, old age security must change with it if it is to serve the purpose for which it was intended while remaining sustainable and reflecting evolving demographic realities.

If we were to remain complacent in the face of these developments, it would be financially unsupportable in the long term. The cost of the OAS program is scheduled to rise from $38 billion in 2011 to $108 billion in 2030. Clearly that is not sustainable, and not acting for Canadian taxpayers who expect this benefit when they retire would be economically irresponsible. In a caring country committed to its people, the government has an obligation to balance care and cost.

It is important for members of this House to realize that the OAS program is already the single largest program of the Government of Canada.

A recent National Post editorial stated:

Unlike the CPP, OAS is funded out of general government revenues, and will eat up more and more tax dollars as Baby Boomers enter their senior years.... That is not something that we can afford to ignore.

I would just challenge members. If they have never read the book Boom, Bust & Echo, which talks about the demographic reality, the changes that are coming through, such that the baby boomer generation is the one that is going to create the greatest demands on our social system, I would encourage them to read it just to give them some of the background. I think it would help all of us to understand better.

With the passage of Canada's jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act, the age of eligibility for OAS and the GIS would be gradually increased from the age of 65 to the age of 67, starting in April 2023, with full implementation by January 2029. It is intended in that way to give the gentlest implementation and give a lot of advance notice for people to be able to plan and prepare. This change would not affect anyone who is 54 years of age older as of March 21, 2012. I feel it is a responsible and measured approach for taxpayers, particularly with those who have an expectation of these benefits and who expect and deserve no less.

To improve flexibility and choice for those wishing to work longer, our government will also allow for the voluntary deferral of the OAS for up to five years, starting July 1, 2013. This would provide the option for people to defer take-up on the OAS to a later time and receive a higher annual actuarially-adjusted pension as a result. The adjusted pension would be calculated on an actuarially neutral basis, as is done with the Canada pension plan.

This would mean that on average, individuals would receive the same lifetime OAS, whether they choose to take it up at the earliest stage of eligibility or defer it to a later year. The annual pension would be higher if they choose to defer. GIS benefits, which provide additional support to the lowest-income seniors, will not be eligible for actuarial adjustment.

These sorts of changes are in keeping with international best practices, as many OECD member countries have recently planned or are announcing increases to the eligibility ages for their public pensions and social security programs, including—and this is a long list—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 the United States.

However, these are not the only areas where Bill C-38 would implement improvements to OAS.

The bill would also improve the way we administer OAS for Canada's seniors, while at the same time generating operational savings. The act would do so by putting in place a proactive enrolment regime that would eliminate the need for many seniors to apply for OAS and GIS. This measure would reduce the burden on seniors of completing application processes and it would reduce the government's administrative costs. What a boon that is going to be to seniors.

With the passage Bill C-38, proactive enrolment will be implemented under a phased-in approach from 2013 to 2016.

It is interesting that Gordon Pape, the noted financial columnist, also applauded this move, calling it:

...a welcome elimination of bureaucratic red tape that should have the effect of putting a lot more money into the hands of seniors....This means that many people will no longer have to apply for benefits when they turn 65 – the payments will come automatically. The potential gain for seniors is huge.

The federal government's task force on financial literacy reported that an estimated 160,000 seniors who qualify for old age security are not receiving benefits because they have not submitted a formal application. The loss in pre-tax income to these people is almost $1 billion.

However, the changes that simplify—

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I regret the hon. member's time has elapsed. Perhaps he can complete it with questions and comments.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam.

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

Madam Speaker, the member is often noted for being reasonable, so I ask, when looking at such a bill as this budget implementation bill—or, as it has been called, the Trojan Horse bill—which contains changes to 70 pieces of legislation, would the member not agree that it would at least be reasonable to separate those pieces of legislation so that they could go into the appropriate committees to get the proper review and expertise?

This is obviously something that we as the official opposition had proposed as reasonable for an omnibus bill that is so huge and so far-reaching in its changes. Would the member not agree that it is reasonable to request that the bill be studied at committees that have the appropriate expertise to look at and comment on these changes?

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I think about the question, it reminds me a bit of the situation when the Minister of Justice put forward the Safe Streets and Communities Act. It was a compilation of some eight different bills.

At that time, members opposite said that if we broke this down into individual bills, perhaps they might be able to support some of these things. Here is the challenge: every one of those bills had gone in front of Parliament and every one of them was rejected by the opposition.

Therefore, it strikes me that while perhaps it is a noble thought at one level, I frankly do not believe that the result would be any different from what it is today. Every aspect of the bill that is in place relates to financial issues, and I think it really does show a very clear path of where the government is going.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and colleague across the way.

I would like to be clear also. The government's raising of the age of eligibility from 65 to 67 years is not necessary and is not needed to maintain the sustainability of the old age security.

Experts from the OECD, leading universities and the government itself have all said that our OAS program does not face major challenges and that there is no pressing need for change. Canada's Parliamentary Budget Officer says that the OAS is sustainable. Payments today cost 2.4% of our national GDP; when the baby boomers max out in 2031, it will climb to 3.1% and then drop off again.

Why is the government refusing to listen to its own experts and creating a false crisis?

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from Etobicoke North for posing that question. I think it is an important question, and let me explain why.

I explained in my comments earlier that the CPP is funded through employer and employee contributions. It is through that process that we come up with the funding that is available. However, the funds that are available to support OAS and GIS come from general tax revenues. In other words, there is no magic base of premium incomes to do that.

As I indicated, in 20 years the costs will go from $38 billion to $108 billion of taxpayer money, so with a modest, slight adjustment—and we are asking for a modest accommodation from folks who will eventually get to that senior group—we are going to ensure that we sustain a program for people's retirement that will allow them to live in dignity and that will show respect to them. That adjustment is the key to that outcome.

I would hope that members opposite appreciate that when prices triple in such a very short period of time, it is just a demographic issue. Again, I will reintroduce the name of that book, Boom, Bust & Echo, for their consideration as well.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, an auto analyst once said that the future of the auto industry is the six inches between our ears. It is our ability to innovate and think long range. That is a key pillar of our budget and the necessary architecture to implement it.

Can the member talk about innovation and how it is going to drive long-term economic prosperity?

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. In my former life, when I was in the insurance business and specifically in employee benefits and pensions, one of my dear colleagues once said that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We have a circumstance with the government where, frankly, we are allowed to be a little hopeful that our economy is getting stronger in a world where the economy has some great challenges worldwide. We can be proud of that, and innovation has a very direct impact on that. We will see that the government's commitment to innovation across various departments will help sustain us as we go forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, right off the top I would like to address the conflict and divisiveness that is being created at this very moment when households across this country have to choose between watching the awarding of the Stanley Cup or listening to the comments presented by the member for Cape Breton—Canso.

Congratulations to Darryl Sutter and Dustin Brown, captain of the L.A. Kings. I heard second-hand that they ended up beating New Jersey tonight, so congratulations to the 18 Canadians on that team. Way to go.

There are any number of issues that I could address during this budget discussion. One is certainly the cuts to ACOA of $19 million over the coming years.

There are the cuts to the regional development authorities, groups that have done so much for their various communities and contributed in many different ways to programs and projects over the years. They are being cut.

We are seeing regional offices of Veterans Affairs being shut down in Sydney and Charlottetown and being centralized. If we owe anything to anybody, it is the veterans of this nation. We at least owe them the courtesy of being able to meet with a live person to discuss their files and current challenges. That is being taken away from them through the measures within this budget.

I could talk about the OAS and how the changes to the OAS in this budget are going to disproportionately impact the poorest in our country: disabled persons and persons who live close to the poverty line. It is not only those who live in poverty, but those with low-income households and single mothers. Those who most need that support will be the ones most impacted by these changes to the OAS. I could talk about that, but I am going to limit my comments to five letters. The first three letters will be DFO and the last two letters will be EI.

My riding of Cape Breton—Canso is a coastal community, and it has been seized by both of these issues. I heard a government member say the Conservatives have done what they said they were going to do and the government has delivered what it said it was going to deliver. I know that in 2008 they identified in their platform that they were going to bring forward a new Fisheries Act in 2008. They are in a majority position now and pretty much ram through whatever they want. This piece of legislation is its marquee case in point.

They could have brought forward a Fisheries Act, but instead lumped all of this stuff together—the environment, natural resources, the fisheries. Changes to the application of the Fisheries Act are going to be felt in fishing communities right across this country, and not only by coastal communities but by communities on inland waters as well.

A couple of the changes to DFO are certainly cause for alarm when we look at what the Conservatives have done with the science branches and science within DFO. Regardless of the species, we know that the health of the stocks, the biomass and the exploitation rate are generated and driven by pure science. If the Conservatives do not have access to the science, the health of our sustainable fishery will be put in question going forward. That is something we should all be very concerned about.

With regard to enforcement, we know that front-line officers are being taken out of regional offices. I spoke with my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour about something we were made aware of last week, the change in policy whereby DFO is no longer going to require lobster fishermen to buy tags because there is nobody in the offices to sell and administer them. The government is going to stop the practice of selling tags. The lobster traps are not going to be tagged, yet what the lobster fishermen have done over the last generations is put in place conservation practices that have sustained that fishery and those communities by having that fishery.

One thing that has been a key component of those conservation methods is a limited number of traps per fisherman. When the fisheries officers do pull a trap, if they are not marked, how would they know who owns that trap? That is an obvious step backward in conservation in what should be a move toward further sustainability in those fisheries. We have seen that.

The most egregious one that really gets the hackles up on anybody is this. I have a great number of friends who are progressive Conservatives. They are good people and they want to see people succeed and prosper. St. John's, Newfoundland, long before oil and gas, was the hub of finance for the Atlantic coast fishery. That is where people came and did their trade. Fish were bought and sold. Certainly, DFO has a long history and long presence in St. John's, Newfoundland. The government is taking 28 jobs out of St. John's, Newfoundland, and moving them to Fredericton, New Brunswick, which is the only constituency in Atlantic Canada that does not have a wharf. Coincidentally though, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is from Fredericton, New Brunswick. I am sure there are Reformers over on that bench who, when they heard that, wanted to take a shower. That was so cheap and tawdry that the Conservatives should apologize to the good people of Newfoundland for taking on such an activity. They should be embarrassed. I hope that the Reformers in that caucus would address that particular move.

If Loyola Hearn were in this House, that would not happen. Those jobs would still be in St. John's, Newfoundland. Loyola Hearn would not let that happen. I guess it is a penalty for not electing Loyola Sullivan.

The other two letters are EI. We know that the changes to this EI system are nothing short of an attack on rural Canada, on seasonal industries. What they are doing is robbing a group of industries. Seasonal industries contribute about 26% of the GDP of this country. That is seasonal industries, such as tourism, forestry, the fishery, contractors and construction workers. It is about 26% of the GDP. What these measures under this bill would do is rob those industries of a pool of labour going forward. I will just typify this.

We all have landscapers in our communities. Fifteen years ago, anybody with a half-ton truck and wheelbarrow was a landscaper. That industry has come so far now that they have red seal approval, so they have attracted people and professionals to the industry and we see that in the projects they create and the job they do. It is a very professional organization. They know that these changes would steer people into other professions that will steer them away from landscaping. This is just one small seasonal industry. Even more so than the workers who would be chased out of rural communities, it is the industries and the communities that are driven by these industries that would pay the price for the changes in the EI system.

They made a couple of good changes. Had this been a smaller bill or legislation coming forward and if they had debated the EI changes in this House, I think we could have done something to make it better for all Canadians.

I look forward to any questions.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated my colleague's very entertaining speech at this late hour.

The Conservatives are talking about natural resources, but they need to expand their definition of that term, and I think my colleague could enlighten them with his wise remarks in that regard. Indeed, natural resources are not just minerals, oil and natural gas, but they also include our forests, our lakes and our fish. Natural resources include more than what the government would have Canadians believe, that is, just oil, gas and minerals. They also include Canada's nature and our environment. I wonder if my colleague could enlighten this government as to what a natural resource is.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member made a valid point.

It was interesting to note that when the Minister of Finance appeared at the finance committee and he was asked about the components that apply to natural resources, he said it was not his responsibility. In defending the budget, the Minister of Finance was not able to respond to components of the budget that were included in the omnibus budget because they were not within his purview.

My colleague addressed one of the major concerns that has been identified throughout this debate this evening, and that is that there has just been so much rammed into the budget. This could have been eight different bills and they still would have been big bills to deal with.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give my hon. friend some data. In 2008 the climate change performance index ranked Canada 56th of 57 countries in terms of tackling emissions. In 2009 the Conference Board of Canada ranked Canada 15th of 17 wealthy industrialized nations on environmental performance. I could give 2010 and 2011 data that is similar.

The hon. Thomas Sidden has repeatedly voiced concerns regarding Bill C-38. He said the government is totally watering down and emasculating the Fisheries Act. The government is making Swiss cheese out of it.

I am wondering if the hon. member could comment on the Conservatives' repeated failing grade on the environment.

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

Mr. Speaker, one thing I can say with great certainty is that is the first time I have ever been asked a question by somebody who won a Nobel Prize. It is very similar to the question that has been asked by my NDP colleague.

If one can throw enough in, if one can slough enough off, then one does not have to answer the tough questions. One does not have to get into any kind of detail. One views the issues from 36,000 feet. If one lumps enough in, that is going to be the end result. That is what we are seeing in this case.

Whether we want to talk about the fishery or the environment, the state of the water or the state of our oceans, they are all connected to the health of the resource. As they are masked inside this legislation, it does all of those sectors a great disservice.

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

Mr. Speaker, we know how much is in this bill. Up to 70 bills would be changed by this omnibus bill. It would change the face of the country.

The hon. member spoke about the effects on the Fisheries Act. I am wondering if he could briefly talk about the kind of consultation that happened either in his riding or in Atlantic Canada or even across the country on the specific changes to section 35, which is fundamental to the protection of fish habitat, which is the trigger for environmental reviews.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I spent some time together on the fisheries and oceans committee. He knows that would have been the place for any changes in the fishery.

The Conservatives had said in 2008 that they wanted to bring forward a new fisheries act. When my colleague from Halifax was Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, he was charged with the same responsibility. Now that there is a majority government, this would be the time to do that, bring it to the fisheries committee and deal with those issues, but in a budget bill? No, we are hurting the people it impacts most.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a privilege to speak with respect to the bill. I think it is important to note that it strikes the right balance with respect to supporting economic growth, job creation, restoring the balance and returning to a deficit reduction plan that would bring us to balance over a number of years.

The economic action plan is really a number of strategies, a number of steps that, taken together, would accomplish a couple of things. First, they would ensure that our economy continues to expand and jobs are preserved and continue to grow.

It is an opportunity for Canadians to enjoy economic prosperity at a time when the economies of the world are experiencing significant pressures and challenges.

The delay tactics on the part of the opposition, the rhetoric, the steps to try to delete all the clauses, are really not improving the legislation; rather they are just tactics to delay for the sake of delaying.

In addition to growing jobs, we can continue to grow our economy by ensuring a number of projects, mining projects, oil and gas recovery programs and indeed responsible resource development take place. When that happens, of course jobs are created and people have the opportunity to advance in their skills and training and to enjoy the economy that follows from that.

Many in the resource sector, including the Saskatchewan Mining Association and others, have concerns regarding the regulatory process for approval of new projects. If a project is delayed because of the regulatory process, needless to say there would be fewer jobs. Streamlining the process would speed up the process, eliminate duplication that results in a lot of time being consumed and of course a lot of money being spent. Overlapping between the provincial and the federal processes has cost both time and money.

Part 3 of the budget 2012 deals exclusively with responsible resource development and the government's plan to modernize Canada's regulatory system. The measures would make regulatory reviews for major projects more predictable and timely. It would reduce the regulatory burden, the duplication, while at the same time strengthening environmental protection.

Time limits are set for assessments. Co-operation with jurisdictions would be enabled through powers to delegate an environmental assessment, or part of it, the substitution of the process, to another jurisdiction or recognition of a provincial process as equivalent for a specific project.

Emerging markets around the world have provided Canada with a tremendous opportunity to responsibly develop our abundant natural resources for the benefit of all Canadians. Much of it is in the northern part of Canada. It is where we find many aboriginal people reside and where they need the employment, the skills training and upgrading.

In 2010 natural resource sectors employed more than 760,000 workers in communities throughout the country. In the next 10 years, more than 500 major economic projects representing over $500 billion in new investments are planned right across Canada. Fixed timelines would create certainty and predictability for business, which would lead to good, well-paying and skilled jobs for Canadians.

In order to ensure our economy continues to grow, we have to be sure we have the human resources. In my travels with the human resource committee, we found that there are labour shortages in high-demand occupations across the country in the skilled trades as well as labour shortages in the lower-skilled positions, especially in the service industry, the food industry, the hotel and hospitality industry, in agriculture and aquaculture as well.

We need not only to increase the opportunities to develop our resources but also to ensure that we have the right human resources to meet the national demands of industry.

We have found in all regions of the country, Halifax, St. John's, Sydney, Vancouver, Fort McMurray and my home town of Estevan as well as Weyburn and other areas in Souris—Moose Mountain, that business is finding it difficult to meet their labour needs.

We can all agree that to the extent possible we need to ensure we start early in our schools to emphasize the skills and trades to our youth, to use the regional community colleges to adapt to industry and in partnership with industry, to do the proper programming and training to provide the individuals needed for the job.

There are other additional steps that can be taken, and this budget document does that. First, we have taken steps to improve the employment insurance program. It is one of the single largest labour market programs that we have, providing income replacement to help individuals and their families, as well as training and other labour market supports to help Canadians return to employment. By agreement with the provinces, $1.9 billion would be spent on skills training and upgrading to ensure that Canadians have the skills they need to advance in their positions and to have the jobs that are available. The budget has targeted common sense changes to the EI program to make it more efficient, a program that will promote job creation, remove disincentives to work, support unemployed Canadians and quickly connect Canadians to jobs.

If people are able to improve themselves by finding a job that provides more income than what they can receive on EI, that is, 90% of what they used to make, and is in line with their skills and abilities, then of course they should be able to take that particular job. It may be that if they advance they do not go back to their old job, but that is the nature of how the economy works.

Economic action plan 2012 also proposes $21 million over two years to connect unemployed Canadians with jobs. Matching workers with available jobs is critical to supporting economic growth and productivity. So if money is going to be spent on good labour market information, if we can provide information on what jobs are available and people are able to access them, everybody would win in that situation: the employer, the economy and the worker. The steps taken here certainly aim to ensure that the content and timeliness of job and labour market information provided to Canadians searching for work is up to date, informational and available to them.

Additionally, the steps would ensure that if people do take a job, they would be able to retain their working wage in addition to their EI to a greater extent than before. What this would do is ensure that those who wish to work can work.

Notwithstanding all of that, we find that with the economy going forward as it is, as a result of the steps we have taken in numerous budgets, people are drawn to higher-paying jobs in the mining industry or government sector and are upwardly mobile. That is a good thing.

Employers in the service industry, including in the fast food and hospitality industries, find they have a difficult time getting employees. So we have enhanced the temporary foreign worker program. We have taken steps in this budget to ensure that the process would be more efficient with less paperwork and be more responsive to employers so they can fill those needs. If businesses and communities want to grow, they expect the service industry to be in step with them. This budget would provide the ability to do that.

In addition, notwithstanding anything that is done, notwithstanding the improvements to the EI system and all of the other processes that try to ensure that our labour needs are met within the country, there are certain skill sets that are not met and must be met by immigration. Steps would be taken in this budget to ensure that immigration is streamlined and flexible and that we can get the skilled people that this country needs to grow, as quickly as possible. Any step we can take in that regard is a positive one. We would get the best skilled people who are out there to meet our demands.

In addition, we would take steps to deal with foreign credentials. When those people come to our country, it takes time to have their credentials recognized. We would enhance our programming and our funding to ensure that people in certain categories can have their credentials assessed within one year. We have expanded those categories twice now and would do so again under this particular budget to ensure that the process can happen quickly. We would ensure that there would be funding or loans provided to people so that they could enhance their skills quickly. Everybody would win by that. They would win by having a better job with higher pay, and we would win by the fact that they would be able to provide a service.

All of these steps are to be taken together and are strategic to ensure that our economy continues to go forward and work well, notwithstanding what is happening in the rest of the world. These are all positive actions. We should get behind them and support them.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech. He mentioned that within the environmental assessment laws, which are to be gutted and mangled by this bill, there would be provisions for the transfer of environmental assessments to provincial regimes where equivalency is available.

In this world of environmental assessment where there are ever increasing projects and lesser land, air and water available, one of the most critical issues within an environmental assessment is cumulative impact assessment, namely how to assess projects in relation to other projects in similar regions.

I know that the legislation the government has brought forward still contains cumulative impact assessments. However, interestingly enough, there is only one province that has this within its purview. Therefore, equivalency in environmental assessment in this country for some of the more critical issues is really not very strong between what exists in the provinces and what is required under federal legislation.

Does my colleague think that in Ontario, which lacks cumulative impact assessment, projects conducted under its provincial legislation rather than federal legislation would be invalid?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the point the member is missing is the aim of ensuring there is no duplication, that there is no repetition of the same thing over a long period of time, with a number of people trying to get to the same conclusion. The bill would ensure that there is a proper assessment done and that it is done at one level. In order for a province to have an equivalency agreement, it would have to meet certain standards. Of course, if there are no such standards in the province, then they would proceed with the federal standards.

Industry has complained about the slowness of the process and the fact that it is overlapping, dealing with the same issues in two jurisdictions between federal and provincial processes. That has cost industry a lot of time, money and delays in projects for no particular good outcome. The bill would streamline that process, but not by way of compromising the end result; it would ensure that the end result is every bit as good, and better.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during the subcommittee hearings reviewing part 3 of Bill C-38, Ms. Rachel Forbes, staff counsel for West Coast Environmental Law, said that she did not believe that the proposed amendments and the new legislation as currently drafted would accomplish any of the government's four pillars--namely, more predictable and timely reviews, less duplication in reviewing projects, strong environmental protection, and enhanced consultation with aboriginal peoples--but might actually hinder them.

My question is, what are the projected costs of the repeal of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to the provinces and territories?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, at this instant I cannot provide the projected costs or savings, because I am not aware of them. However, I know that people who have testified before our committee, many of them in the chemical industry in Saskatchewan and others who are planning to do extensions to projects and so on, have found that project delays and the cost associated with those have happened for no better reason than duplication and the process involved.

Notwithstanding what that particular witness may have said, there are other witnesses who take a much different position. The Saskatchewan Mining Association has appeared at a number of committees, including recently in Estevan, Saskatchewan during a hearing, where it said that this needed to be addressed if we wanted to be sure that we proceeded with our economy while at the same time protecting the environment. The cost of not doing so would run into the millions of dollars, and the loss of many jobs and the continued economic prosperity of Canadians.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to get up and speak for a few moments this evening about this important piece of legislation.

I am somewhat confused by the responses of the members opposite when they say a couple of things. They say that this is common sense way to deal with a number of problems, by introducing an omnibus bill that changes 70 important pieces of legislation; it is a common sense approach to dealing with important matters; it is simply a way of growing the economy, creating jobs and moving the country forward; and that a lot of the changes they have introduced in the legislation are important changes that will benefit the country, and that they are very proud of them.

What I cannot get over is, if that in fact is the case, then why do they not take some time to consider each one of those changes? For example, when we look at the changes to the employment insurance system contained in the bill, none other than the four Atlantic premiers have come out in the last few days and said they have very serious concerns about the proposed changes. They have not been consulted and would like to examine those changes.

We have talked a lot in the House over the past number of weeks about the changes to the Fisheries Act. Contrary to what one member opposite said, many of us have looked at the bill, examined the changes that have been made and have listened to a number of experts who have considered what the impact will be. As recently as this afternoon, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission came before our fisheries committee to talk about invasive species. They spoke to a resolution that had been passed and forwarded to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans by the advisory committee to that commission, asking that the government engage in further consultation on the changes to the Fisheries Act, and failing that, that the government recognizes that the definition of fisheries habitat it has used is completely and utterly inadequate. They suggested different language in order to do that.

That does not sound to me as if the people who are affected by the legislation are understanding or being supportive of these changes. Therefore, what is confusing me and confusing many Canadians who are being directly affected by the legislation is that if government members are as proud as they say they are about the changes they are trying to implement, why do they not take time to talk with Canadians about what they are proposing to do and make sure that everyone is on board?

Unfortunately, what we have seen over the past number of weeks is the government hell bent on getting the legislation through. It is trying to prevent Canadians actually seeing what is in the bill and understanding what is here.

The member before me spoke glowingly about the changes to EI, the changes to the temporary foreign workers program, and the changes to the Fair Wages and Hours Act and how this was going to help employees. What they are doing with those three changes alone is driving down the wages of working people in our country so they will not be able to afford to purchase goods and services in our communities. How in the name of heaven is that supporting the economy in Atlantic Canada or in the member's own constituency? I would like him to give that some consideration.

I was on the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Finance that considered Bill C-38, the 70 pieces of legislation that were being affected, and we had only 14 hours to do that.

We had 14 hours to consider the employment insurance changes and the Fisheries Act changes. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act would be completely repealed and replaced in Bill C-38. We had 14 hours to examine and to listen to representations by Canadian experts, by people who would be directly affected by this legislation. These people came before us and told us what they thought about it. They told us how the bill would affect them and the issues that they are interested in. They brought their expertise before us. It was revealing. I learned a great deal from both those who supported the legislation and those who were opposed to the legislation.

However, what concerned me the most, as a parliamentarian and as someone who has some experience in legislation, in dealing with these matters, was the dismissive way that many of these witnesses were dealt with. I was disgusted, frankly. Members opposite, members of the government side, challenged anyone who raised any questions. They treated them poorly. In fact, if we look at the subcommittee's report that was tabled in this House when the finance committee reported back to this House, we will see a report that is nowhere near reflective of the testimony that we heard in those 14 hours.

Let me give an example. The Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Chief Atleo, came before our committee. He told us in no uncertain terms how upset he and his people were. They had not been consulted, the government had completely ignored the duty to accommodate and the duty to consult that has been reaffirmed in Supreme Court decisions over the past 20 years. The changes being proposed in a number of pieces of legislation do not consider the role that the first nations play in this country. It would create extraordinary hardship and extraordinary damage to many of the things that the first nations people in this country hold dear.

Do members see that sentiment reflected in the subcommittee's report? Not a word. Grand Chief Atleo's testimony is not even referred to once in the subcommittee's report. How can that be? We are talking about the Assembly of First Nations that represents over 600 first nations communities in this country, first nations that have rights, treaty rights, constitutional rights that have been defined by and confirmed by the Supreme Court. His testimony and the concerns of the first nations people in this country are not even reflected once in that report.

Members opposite are laughing. They think this is a great joke. But let me say that as a member of this chamber, I am thoroughly embarrassed and disgusted with the way that this matter has been handled. It is so disrespectful of the people who have taken their time to come before us to provide testimony. It is as though, if anyone disagrees with the current government, whether it is a member of the National Round Table on the Environment and on the Economy, or Grand Chief Shawn Atleo or members who came before us today of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, or anyone who has any objection with the government, the members will shout them down, they will rule them out, they will not include them in their reports. It is shameful behaviour. I am telling members that Canadians are paying attention and they are not going to stand for this. They are not going to stand being railroaded by the government.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite spoke about the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. I had the opportunity to be with the environment critic for the NDP on a television panel earlier this month. When asked by the host if she could name a report that she has used or found useful from the national round table that did not involve a carbon tax, she could not name one. Could my colleague opposite do so?

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member who asked the question clearly did not pay any attention to what I spent 10 minutes talking about, nor did she spend a whole lot of time paying attention to the representations in the subcommittee. In fact, when anybody was at all critical of her government, the member went out of her way to abuse and disrespect people who made representations. Frankly, she performed in a manner that is below contempt, as far as I am concerned, for a member of Parliament. I was completely and utterly discouraged and disgusted by that behaviour.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will give my colleague an opportunity to further elaborate on a question he asked today in the House with regard to a very important measure that looks like it is going to be taken away from lobster fishermen, in the Atlantic region at least. A group of fishermen has sacrificed over the last number of years to make sure their industry is sustainable. Now the minister is blowing the whole thing up. I know he is looking at doing away with fleet separation and owner operators, the principles of the fishery that have long served it. It looks like this is another measure, but in the process is destabilizing the conservation and long-term stability of the fishery. I would like my colleague to comment on the question he asked today and the significance of this measure being taken by the government.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. We are dealing with changes to the Fisheries Act in Bill C-38 that would have a very detrimental impact. At the same time, people in the fishery are also being hit as the Department of Fisheries and Oceans makes serious cuts. The latest one we have learned about is that the department is no longer going to issue tags for lobster traps. Therefore, there will be no way to keep track of whether people are fishing legally or illegally. This will fly in the face of all the conservation efforts and attempts to control that the fishermen have been engaged in for so many years.

Let me say in conclusion that his colleague, the member for Etobicoke North, sat with me and colleagues on this side night after night as we listened to representations in the subcommittee. I know that she has as many concerns as I do with the way those witnesses were being dealt with.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we heard the parliamentary secretary talk about the national round table. I wonder if he could comment on Bob Mills, the former Conservative environment critic, who had very critical things to say about shutting down the round table. What does the member think of the Conservative's comment about the Conservatives' budget being rammed through and killing the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy?

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. It was not just Bob Mills but former fisheries ministers John Fraser and Tom Siddon who both said what the government was doing was completely and utterly wrong-headed, that it was trying to hide the changes from Canadians and it needed to back off and put this matter under proper review to make sure we come out at the end of the day not only with a good product but a product that people understand and have some confidence in.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak tonight about the opposition's intransigence with respect to the passage of Bill C-38, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act, and to speak against the opposition's attempts to delay and defeat this important economic legislation.

The NDP and its opposition cohorts are engaging in all sorts of games to hijack this important piece of legislation. In response, I would like to remind them that Canadians do not care for procedural games. They want their elected representatives focused on what matters to them: jobs and the economy. This is especially true in a period of such volatile global economic turbulence.

Unfortunately it does not seem that the NDP and the other opposition parties are willing to do that. Canadians are noticing and they are shaking their heads. For the benefit of the NDP, let me quote a recent Toronto Sun editorial. I am going to quote extensively.

As Europe stands poised on the brink of a disastrous economic wildfire that could blacken the world, the [NDP leader's] hypocrisy and self-obsession is in full flame...vowing to delay the passing of [economic action plan 2012] by playing silly...with amendments and procedure....This is nothing but grandstanding....This is a budget designed to create jobs and inspire economic growth, and it comes to the House of Commons at a moment that can only be described as the 11th hour of a global economic conflagration....Right now, there is only one enemy in our fight to protect Canada from the repercussions of Europe's burning. And it's...[the NDP leader]. This is inarguable.

The quote describes the NDP as the enemy of our efforts to protect Canada and protect our economy. I could not agree more. Why? Because I understand that Bill C-38, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act, is in the best interests of all Canadians. By implementing key elements of economic action plan 2012, this bill would equip Canadians, regardless of whether they are workers, business owners or retirees, with the tools that they need to address the challenges that lie ahead, and to succeed for the long term.

It would include measures that would leverage the enormous economic potential of Canada's increasingly important energy and natural resources sectors. Natural resources, including energy, mining and minerals, processing and forestry, already represent almost 10% of our economy, and provide nearly 800,000 Canadians with employment and income.

My riding of Wild Rose is extremely diverse. It is home to people from all walks of life, engaged in practically every sector of our economy, all striving to build a better future for themselves, their families and their communities, whether they are working in agriculture, tourism, forestry, oil and gas, or the manufacturing and service industries that rely on those sectors' products. They rely on responsible development of the natural resources that we are blessed to share.

From growing up and working on the family farm near Olds, I know how important it is to be a good steward of our environment. It does not matter if one is driving a combine near Didsbury, checking a gas well near Cochrane or running a bed and breakfast in Banff, people make their living directly from the environment. There is a vested interest in making sure their children and grandchildren have the same opportunity.

I am proud to support our government's plan for responsible resource development that is within the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act. Through this act, we would be able to streamline the review process for these types of projects while protecting the environment under an effective and efficient regime based on the principle of one project, one review, and within a clearly defined time period. In the past, these delays could kill potential jobs and stall economic growth by putting valuable investments at risk.

We would also be adopting strong new measures to protect the environment, including making environmental impact decisions enforceable with the full weight of the law, adding stiff new penalties for non-compliance with those decisions, and adding new funding to enhance marine shipping and pipeline safety.

Furthermore, we would also extend the temporary 15% mineral exploration tax credit for flow-through share investors for an additional year to support mineral exploration.

These actions are fundamental to maximizing Canada's long-term economic potential at a time when this objective has never been more important.

It is estimated that energy and other major resource projects could generate more than $500 billion in new investment in Canada over the next 10 years, and that scale of investment could make a real difference in insulating Canadians from the sort of economic problems making headlines elsewhere in the world.

Bill C-38 would also improve Canada's employment insurance program, with a focus on promoting job creation, removing disincentives to work, supporting unemployed Canadians and quickly connecting people to available jobs. At the same time, it would ensure stable, predictable EI premium rates by eliminating premium rate increases to 5¢ each year until the EI operating account is in balance and then moving to a seven year break-even rate. It would help build a fast and flexible economic immigration system to meet Canada's labour market needs. It would also make gradual adjustments to the old age security program to put it on a sustainable path for future generations.

At the same time, the bill would legislate our government's commitment to sustainable and predictable transfers to provinces and territories in support of health care, education and other social programs and services that are among Canadians' highest priorities. This includes extending total transfer protection to 2012-13 to ensure that a province's total major transfers in that year are no lower than in a prior year, representing $680 million in support to affected provinces.

The jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act would modernize Canada's currency by gradually eliminating the penny from Canada's coinage system.

It would modernize the back office of government, refocusing programs and services to make them more effective and efficient and making it easier for Canadians and businesses to access them.

For families, including some of the most vulnerable, the bill would expand health related tax relief and income tax systems to better meet the health care needs of Canadians while also helping Canadians with severe disabilities and their families by improving the registered disability savings plan.

Last but not least, Bill C-38 would help ensure Canada's housing market remains strong and stable by enhancing the governance and oversight framework for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to ensure its commercial activities are managed in a manner that promote the stability of the financial system.

As part of these improvements in mortgage oversight, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, or OSFI, would be given a role in assessing CMHC's commercial activities, particularly its mortgage insurance and securitization programs. These changes would contribute to improving governance and oversight of mortgage lending practices in Canada, contributing to the stability of the housing market, which will benefit all Canadians.

Those are just a few of the specific measures in Bill C-38 that we would like to enact for the benefit of Canadians. However, for that to happen, we need to get the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act through Parliament. If the opposition wants to debate these measures on substance, the government has shown it is more than willing to respond.

In fact, Bill C-38 has already received the longest House of Commons debate at second reading and finance committee consideration of any budget in at least over two decades. A special subcommittee was struck to review and further debate the responsible resource development section as well. At the finance committee there were nearly 70 hours of hearings and literally hundreds of individuals who spoke to the legislation and its importance, for example, groups like the Canadian Federation of Independent Business that called economic action plan 2012 “positive news for small business”.

Coming out of the global recession, Canada finds itself on remarkably stable footing. We have relatively low debt levels as compared to other industrialized nations and a plan to eliminate the federal deficit. As a result of this, we have a tremendous opportunity. Out of the fires of this current economic crisis, a stronger Canadian future is being forged. With continued economic and trade growth, we can continue to develop our country's role as a true leader on the global stage. That is what this federal budget is all about.

Our government intends to continue moving in a direction of strong economic growth, low taxes and long-term prosperity that will benefit all Canadians.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech and I must admit I am troubled by his closing comments.

I want to believe in the dream he is selling, but the problem is that Canada will become increasingly intertwined in the global context and will be at the mercy of what is happening around the world.

When we develop natural resources, which is not bad in and of itself—on the contrary, it is a great Canadian tradition—when we give these natural resources such a important place in our economy and, when they fuel our trade with other countries, then we need not be surprised if there is some backlash.

Considering the economic downturn in Europe, the slow economic recovery in the United States and the fact that the four BRIC countries are having problems of their own, how can my colleague believe in such a rosy future for our natural resources?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that my opposition colleague across the way spoke about being troubled. Let me tell members that I am also troubled. I am troubled by the fact that when we bring forward measures to try to make sure our economy continues to be one of the strongest in the entire world, to make sure we are insulated from some of the problems in Europe and other countries to the best degree we can, when we look at measures to ensure we can continue to grow our economy and develop our resources but do so while respecting the environment, when we look at improving trade opportunities for Canadians through new trade deals and expanding trade deals, when we try to do all of these for the best interests of the Canadian economy to make sure Canadian businesses continue to thrive and create jobs for Canadians, and I certainly look at our record of more than 700,000 net new jobs created over the past few years, certainly we have been doing all this for the benefit of Canadians to ensure that our economy continues to thrive and grow.

However, the NDP members continue to vote against it and try to delay and deter all this from happening for the benefit of all Canadians. That is what troubles me.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from Wild Rose.

The government members like to say that the opposition is fearmongering. However, there is so much of a void out there, such a lack of information on so many aspects of the pieces of legislation that are impacted by this particular budget bill, and EI is one that has certainly caused a great deal of concern. Perhaps at this late hour, we could help clear up one aspect of it. This is a specific question that I got from a member of the building trades council. Coming from Alberta, the member knows that the building trades have helped build that province and contributed to building this country. Many of the trades travel from project to project during shutdowns. There is a large number of workers needed for a short period of time. Here is the question.

Once an electrician finishes up with one particular project and he comes back and is waiting for the next project to go, if he gets an offer to go and work at the fish plant, will he have to take that position outside the union, not on the union books or anything like that? An electrician is an electrician I guess in the eyes of this legislation. Will he have to take that or risk not being able to garner his benefits? It is a very direct question.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, simply put, the member was obviously talking about some of the changes to employment insurance, but he also talked about feeling that we were accusing him, his party and the other opposition members of fearmongering. They have certainly been talking about not having an opportunity to debate. Here we are near midnight debating this bill and will be doing so over the next couple of weeks. We have had more debate on this bill at second reading and at the finance committee than there has been with any other budget over the past 20 years, and possibly more.

However, the member asked about employment insurance reform. What we are simply trying to do there is make sure we are connecting Canadians who want to work with available work. We are making sure that when businesses are looking at options such as temporary foreign workers, and he mentioned Alberta, my province, where we do have labour shortages, we are trying to make sure we connect Canadians to the available jobs so that they can get back to work.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before I give the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel the floor, I must inform her that I will have to interrupt her at midnight when the time provided for government business expires.

The hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you, and I will wish you good night in advance because I am the last to speak and I have only five minutes.

During my last speech on this subject, I provided a virtually endless list of the acts that will be changed for the worse by this bill. These changes will be especially bad for the most vulnerable Canadians.

I rise in the House this evening to say that this bill is an assault on democracy. This massive omnibus bill goes way too far, well beyond what was announced in the budget. In fact, many of these measures are contrary to what the Conservatives promised during the last election campaign.

It does not address development or prosperity. The Conservatives claim that this budget is about job creation, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that it would result in the loss of 43,000 Canadian jobs.

The truth is that a third of this bill is about eliminating environmental protection regulations. After much consideration, I am convinced that the real theme of this legislation is a massive attack on government transparency.

Not only does the introduction of such an all-encompassing bill harm the public institutions that Canadians count on, but it is also an assault on democracy, as evidenced by the fact that the government simply does not care about the impact of the changes in this bill.

What do members expect from a government that was found in contempt of Parliament only a little over a year ago? The Conservatives have not changed their tune and are only strengthening the powers of the executive in their ability to evade the scrutiny of Parliament and that of their constituents. Before the last election, the Conservatives were frustrated that they could not get away with their agenda because of democratic debate, which led to amendments and compromise that helped government work for all Canadians. How terrible. Now, they no longer have that problem. If we do not like it, they have a majority and they do not feel any obligation to listen to us despite their democratic duty to do so.

We have seen this before in the House with a truly extravagant number of time allocation motions. We have seen it in committee where in camera is used by the Conservative members to cut off public debate and ram through their agenda. Now we see it with this bill, which only continues to show their disdain for democracy and for the Canadian electorate.

With this bill, the government is showing its utter contempt for Parliament and democracy. It is concentrating power in the hands of the executive in an incredible way, and yet it is telling us, “Do not worry; trust us.”

I will continue my speech tomorrow.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel will have six and a half minutes for her speech and five minutes for questions and comments when the House resumes debate on this motion.

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

Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel has six and a half minutes left.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday evening, I spoke about the fact that, with this bill, the government is showing its utter contempt for Parliament and for democracy; it is concentrating more and more power in the hands of the executive, to an incredible extent, in fact.

The Conservatives tell us not to worry and to trust them. How can we trust a government that does not listen to experts—indeed, that treats them with contempt—that stifles debate, that does not listen to voters, that eliminates transparency measures and that even reduces the authority of the Auditor General?

This bill simply gives more power to the cabinet, because it will no longer have to listen to the National Energy Board, for example. The Conservatives will be able to approve projects that had previously been rejected. At the same time, this bill reduces the scope of public participation in the environmental decision-making process. This means that, regardless of the number of people who are opposed to a major energy project and regardless of the grave environmental consequences it may have, Conservative ministers will have the last word.

The elimination of the position of Inspector General of the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service, CSIS, is another move that will have the effect of reducing transparency in government. This move is particularly interesting because the government says that it stands for law and order and for protecting the rights of Canadians, but the Inspector General's duty is to oversee the activities of Canada's spy agency, and his position was established as a guard against the breaches of Canadians' civil liberties that CSIS has the potential to commit.

Even worse, the Conservatives are eliminating the Auditor General's oversight of certain agencies. They are reducing the powers of the Auditor General, who is responsible for holding the government to account, by eliminating oversight and mandatory audits of the financial statements of 12 agencies: Northern Pipeline Agency Canada, which is subject to the Northern Pipeline Act; the Canadian Food Inspection Agency; the Canada Revenue Agency; the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board; the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety; the Exchange Fund Account, which is subject to the Currency Act; the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada; the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada; the Canadian Polar Commission; the Yukon Surface Rights Board; and the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

Across Canada, we are witnessing growing cynicism toward the Conservative government and a lack of confidence in the ability of our parliamentary institutions to represent it. The process by which this bill before us today will become law is an example of why that is the case. For the past several years, we have witnessed an erosion of the function of the House and now this bill is unlike anything the House has ever seen. It is making a mockery of Parliament and the very function and purpose of parliamentary democracy.

As I said earlier, the bill, at 421 pages and enveloping over 700 clauses, including widespread comprehensive changes to laws and institutions that my constituents care deeply about, is not about job creation or prosperity. It is literally a massive job killer, that will directly eliminate 19,200 jobs with a larger effect, estimated by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, of costing Canada 43,000 jobs. That is not jobs, growth and prosperity.

However, not only is this bill's purpose obscured, it also bears the misleading name of “implementing the budget”. As I spoke about this last night, it is not about implementing the budget because it goes so much further than that and it goes against many of the things the Conservatives said during the election campaign.

Bills should reflect a central theme, but this legislation only pretends that changing the role of the Auditor General, scrapping employment equity standards and removing Canada from the Kyoto protocol are issues that have anything to do with one another. It is for this reason that opposition members of the House cannot understand why the measures have all been packed into the budget implementation bill.

Over the past few weeks, opposition members have heard from thousands of Canadians, from coast to coast to coast, who are outraged by Bill C-38. It challenges the integrity of this institution by ramming through these changes in a misleading bill. We as parliamentarians and, by extension, the Canadian public are entitled to the debate and discussion that should occur in this place. Instead, with this bill and with the record number of time allocations and debate closures we have been subjected to as well, it is clear that the government has no respect for Canadians and we should all be deeply concerned.

In short, this bill is a clear and direct threat to my constituents in Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel. For this reason, I will be voting against this budget implementation bill.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Minister of State (Science and Technology) (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario)]

Mr. Speaker, does the member opposite realize that in her entire time allotted to debate the bill she never mentioned anything about the bill specifically, but talked just about the process? Is there a problem with the bill? This is the member's opportunity to debate the bill, but this is, as the government has been saying about the opposition, simply wasting time.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, given that this was my second time speaking to the bill, I really wanted to talk about the fact that this was about process. This process has made it particularly difficult for members to speak to all the issues.

Last time, I spoke about the proposed changes to OAS and the fact that the Conservatives did not tell people about those changes during the election last year. I do not think a lot of people would have voted for them if they had known about that. They knew they were taking away the pension security of their grandchildren, among other things. The bill would repeal the Kyoto protocol. Back home in Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel this is a very big concern to my constituents. It would gut the environmental assessment regime and the fish habitat protection to speed up major projects.

It is a huge bill that we cannot even debate and that is why it is important to raise the point that this is not a transparent or democratic process.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the interest she has shown in this process. This is what concerns me. I sit on the finance committee. We were about to look at a budget bill and we had environmental changes that should have been before a different committee. We had the fisheries. They belonged where they could have people come in and do the due diligence necessary, with experts brought before the committee.

We talked about OAS and, as the member said, the Conservatives did not mention this in the last election. There was not a word. As well, they did not mention changing EI.

However, the one thing that stood out to me as very odd was the Conservatives took away the civilian oversight over CSIS. The people who live in that shadowy world, we would think Canadians would say that it made no sense at all to have that a budget bill.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member made excellent points. I mentioned in my speech that the way CSIS is overseen is being changed. It is just ridiculous. Experts are saying it is just not going to be the same anymore. In fact, it was implemented to make sure that the proper oversight was done to protect Canadians' civil liberties. The government says it is all about an individual's liberty not being interfered with. Clearly that is not true.

What is really damaging about this bill is that we could not really study it because there are so many things in it, and in committee members had only a few minutes to question a witness on a variety of subjects. With more than 700 clauses, it is ridiculous to think we could do an indepth study of the bill and ascertain the impact all the different comprehensive changes are going to have.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech, which was instructive as always.

Last week, the President of the Treasury Board was in Thunder Bay trying to sell the bill we are debating. This is what he said about the environmental assessment process:

“Current joint-panel review environmental assessments are duplicating the process and allowing individuals to use the assessment to discuss irrelevant issues that delay projects from mining to oil and gas that create jobs.”

I would like her comments on that.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou for his comments.

The environmental assessment process is a way of ensuring that projects are okay, but for the Conservatives, of course, it takes too long. The process cannot move swiftly enough for their friends' sake.

However, the fact is that the people who live in these regions have the right to say whether something will affect them. The Conservatives are using this bill to eliminate this process. I think that is one of the major problems with the bill before us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to speak to Bill C-38, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act, and against the opposition amendments to defeat it.

Before I continue, as a member of the finance committee, let me acknowledge the detailed examination at committee stage. The finance committee and a special subcommittee studied the bill for nearly 70 hours, the longest consideration of budget legislation in committee in decades. We heard from literally hundreds of individuals and organizations, from government officials, business leaders, academics, labour groups, industry associations and many more.

As we all know, the bill proposes to legislate key measures of economic action plan 2012, measures vital to ensuring Canada's continued and ongoing economic recovery.

As its very title makes clear, it is a plan that focuses on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. In doing so, it looks ahead not only over the next few years, but over the next generation. It will help further unleash the potential of Canadian businesses and entrepreneurs to innovate and thrive in the modern economy.

Of course, in reaching this goal, Canada starts from an enviable place. For some time now our country has had one of the strongest records among the advanced economies. The World Economic Forum says our banks are the soundest in the world. Forbes magazine ranks Canada as the best country in the world to do business. The OECD and the IMF predict our economy will be among the leaders of the industrialized world over the next few years.

Our debt to GDP ratio remains the lowest in the G7 by far. Since July 2009, Canada has seen employment increase by nearly 760,000 jobs, the best job growth record in the entire G7.

However, we cannot be complacent. There are many global challenges and uncertainties still confronting the economy, especially from Europe. The recovery is not complete, and across this country too many Canadians are still looking for work. The global economy remains fragile, and any potential setback would have an impact on Canada.

It is for these very reasons we introduced Canada's economic action plan 2012. I will now describe why its passage into law is so important to our country and why these opposition amendments to defeat it and delay it are so troubling.

Let me start by highlighting one of the plan's key initiatives. All across the country throughout our consultations with Canadians, one major issue kept repeating itself: the future health of Canada's retirement system. Old age security, the single largest program of the federal government, was designed for a much different demographic future than Canada faces today. Canada has changed and OAS must change with it.

Accordingly, economic action plan 2012 and Bill C-38 will make gradual adjustments to the old age security program to ensure that the next generation can count on it. These adjustments will not affect current recipients or those close to retirement. Starting in 2023 and ending in 2029, we will gradually increase the age of eligibility from 65 to 67. This phased approach will enable younger Canadians to plan ahead with confidence.

We will also make the program more flexible for those approaching retirement. As of July 1, 2013, Canadians will be given the option to defer the start of OAS. This volunteer option will enable them to receive a higher annual old age security pension as a result.

Our government has always acted responsibly to ensure that the social programs Canadians count on will be there when they need them. With these changes, the OAS program will be on a sustainable path.

Indeed, we certainly heard plenty of support and need for these changes at finance committee from a range of independent third party witnesses. For instance, here is what the Macdonald Laurier Institute told the committee:

I think the changes to OAS are a step in the right direction.... [U]sing the traditional definition of sustainability, [OAS] was not sustainable because it either would require more resources or crowding out of other spending.

Along with retirement security, the bill also recognizes that a critical responsibility of any government, and certainly our own, is to support, encourage and protect our most vulnerable citizens. That is why it has been the number one priority in our government's budgets.

In budget 2007, we announced the introduction of the registered disability savings plan, RDSP, to help parents and others save to ensure the long-term financial security of a child with a severe disability.

In budget 2011, we introduced the new family caregiver tax credit for those who care for family members with infirmities. In the same budget the government announced that it would undertake a review of the RDSP program in 2011.

As part of the review, a consultation paper was released which included a number of questions on which Canadians were invited to provide feedback. In response, the government received more than 280 submissions from individuals and organizations. Based on the input received during the review, economic action plan 2012 proposes measures to improve the RDSP. Together they will: allow spouses, common-law partners and parents to establish RDSPs for adult individuals who might not be able to enter into a contract; provide greater access to RDSP savings by reducing the penalty associated with small withdrawals; provide greater flexibility to make withdrawals from certain RDSPs and ensure that RDSP assets are used to support the beneficiary during his or her lifetime; provide greater flexibility for parents who save in RESPs for children with disabilities; provide a better transition as well as increased potential for maintaining an RDSP without disruption for beneficiaries who cease to qualify for the DTC in certain circumstances; and improve the administration of the RDSP for financial institutions and beneficiaries.

Bill C-38 takes the first step toward implementing these changes.

Again, we heard strong support for these amendments from the Council of Canadians with Disabilities at committee, which stated:

--important and positive were the revisions to the Registered Disability Saving Plan (RDSP) that removed a significant barrier for persons with intellectual disabilities and their families to opening an RDSP [account]. The RDSP continues to be a program of significant benefit to Canadians with disabilities and their families.

I would be remiss if I ended my speech without quickly reviewing other important initiatives in Bill C-38 that we cannot have delayed by the opposition amendments.

They include: enhancing the government's oversight framework for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to ensure the corporation's commercial activities are managed in a manner that promotes the stability of the financial system; expanding the health-related tax relief to better meet the health care needs of Canadians; legislating the government's commitment to sustainable and growing transfers to provinces and territories in support of health care, education and other programs and services; and modernizing Canada's currency by gradually eliminating the penny from Canada's coinage system.

In conclusion, as I have noted today, economic action plan 2012 contains a host of benefits for every part of the country. Through this comprehensive and ambitious plan, we will maintain and strengthen our advantages by continuing to pursue our strategies that made us so resilient in the first place: responsibility, discipline and determination.

This bill marks an important milestone, the next major step in creating a brighter future for our country. I urge all members to help us pass Bill C-38.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I honestly believe that my colleague from Chatham-Kent—Essex is too good a member of Parliament to actually believe the speech that he was sent in here to read dutifully, like a parrot, because it is the same speech we have heard over and over again. I want to tell him how much I profoundly disagree with every word that he just said.

If my colleague were any kind of a democrat, he would have prefaced his remarks by apologizing to the House of Commons and the Canadian people for the outrageous affront to democracy that Bill C-38 is. Because the government moved closure yet again and is denying us the opportunity to debate the many aspects of this bill, we will not have time to point out all the shortcomings of what he just read into the record in the House of Commons. However, I want to begin with just one point, which is all we will have time for.

Does the member believe, as I do, that fair wages benefit the whole community? If so, why would his government use this Trojan Horse to repeal a bill called the Fair Wages and Hours of Work Act? What does he have against Canadians who work—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. We need some time for the hon. member to respond.

The hon. member for Chatham—Kent—Essex.

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot possibly imitate that fine--

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Essex has the floor. I am sure hon. members would like to hear the hon. member's response.

The hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Essex.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would not try to imitate this fine member's great acting ability. It is something I would never attempt.

I would say that I do believe everything that I said in my speech. I believe it not only because I know that the government is on the right track but also because I served in finance and was one of those members who sat through long hours listening to witnesses and to the concerns from our members across the way as well. It is the right thing to do for our economy at this time. I believe that we need to pass the act and pass it quickly.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member, my seatmate, for his fine speech. I want to thank him for pointing out the changes that we are making to the registered disability savings plan, a plan that came as a result of this government. When I was on the finance committee and we were doing a tour across the country at pre-budget time, this idea was brought forward. It was fleshed out by our finance minister and brought forward in a budget. I appreciate that clarity.

My colleague is a member of the finance committee. I think it is important for the House and those listening in to understand how much time the committee has spent in listening to testimony on this measure. If he could give us an overview of the committee's schedule in hearing from Canadians on the bill over the last couple of weeks, it would be appreciated.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, my colleague, my seatmate from Burlington for that fine question.

I do not want to sit here and pine about the hours that we spent, but I will say that it was a significant amount of time. Not only did we spend time on Bill C-38; we spent hours, days, weeks and months on consultation before the bill was an act.

This is the result of long hours, long study and long consultation. This is precisely what the people of Canada want us to do at this particular time in the history of Canada when we have such major challenges. This is the right bill at the right time.

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in 1994 the member of Parliament for Calgary West, who is now our Prime Minister, spoke in this House about a Liberal omnibus bill, one that was much smaller than this one. He said:

In the interest of democracy, I ask: How can members represent their constituents on these various areas when they are forced to vote in a block on such legislation and on such concerns?

I ask if the hon. member agrees with that member from 1994 from Calgary West.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague across the way, but the point I wanted to make on the last question from the hon. member for Burlington was that these are indeed trying times. These are times that demand a solution to problems that we have not experienced—at least, I have not in my lifetime, and possibly no one else in this House has.

A group of us travelled on a parliamentary association to the Netherlands a number of months ago. The Netherlands is a country with 16 million people, a country about the size of Nova Scotia, and it is going to trim off 15 billion euros from its budget.

We see that in order to do that, there will be a number of things that we will have to enact. Many acts are going to be affected; consequently, this is going to be a larger bill than possibly some in the past have been, but nothing has been done that does not have to be done.

That is the reason we are doing it. That is why Bill C-38 has to pass.

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

Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of Bill C-38 and to speak against the opposition amendments to delay this important legislation. I will focus my remarks on proposals for the new Canadian environmental assessment act 2012, which is contained in part 3 of the bill.

Before turning to some of the highlights, I will briefly explain why this legislation is important. The current federal regulatory system for project reviews is a patchwork of laws, regulations and policies that have been put in place over a number of decades. While founded upon the best of intentions, the result is an overly complex set of processes that have been plagued by delays and inconsistencies.

In 2007, our Conservative government took action by creating the major projects management office to provide oversight and to inject some coherence and consistency in project reviews. An additional $30 million per year was also invested in the regulatory system. I am pleased that this funding has been renewed through budget 2012.

Despite this effort, it has become clear that fundamental legislative change is required. It is needed both to address the challenges at hand and to take advantage of Canada's promise and opportunity. This is why Bill C-38 introduces measures to promote responsible resource development. The four pillars of this initiative are straightforward: providing predictable and timely reviews, reducing duplication, strengthening environmental protection and enhancing aboriginal consultations.

The portion of Bill C-38 devoted to the Canadian environmental assessment act 2012 supports each of these pillars. First, Bill C-38 would provide for predictable and timely reviews through reasonable and certain legislated timelines for environmental assessments. This is important for investment decisions and the jobs that result from those decisions. This is important for participants in these reviews and is important for federal-provincial co-operation.

The second pillar of reducing duplication is an obvious objective in a federation like Canada where responsibility for the environment is shared between the levels of government. Bill C-38 would accomplish this through new co-operative mechanisms for environmental assessments. Substitution and equivalency provisions would provide for one project one review. The law ensures that environmental standards are not compromised.

There have been statements questioning this fundamental point. Subclause 34(1) of the new act is clear. It states:

The Minister may only approve a substitution if he or she is satisfied that

(a) the process to be substituted will include a consideration of the factors set out in subsection 19(1);

The factors in section 19 that must be considered are at the heart of a federal environmental assessment. A province would have to commit to meeting this standard before substitution or equivalency can be approved. Clause 34 goes on to ensure that the public is provided an opportunity to participate in a substituted environmental assessment and would have access to documents to enable meaningful participation.

Strengthening environmental protection is the third pillar of responsible resource development. I will speak more to this issue later on, but adding enforcement provisions to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act represents a significant step forward.

Enhancing consultations with aboriginal groups is the fourth pillar. The Government of Canada will continue the practice of integrating aboriginal consultations into the environmental assessment process for major projects. In fact, changes to the environment that affect aboriginal peoples are one of the specific environmental effects identified by the act that must be assessed.

A subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Finance was established to deal with part 3 of Bill C-38.

A few quotes from the witnesses who appeared before the subcommittee during committee stage further illustrate how the new Canadian environmental assessment act 2012 will support responsible resource development.

Mr. Ward Prystay, of the Canadian Construction Association, stated:

We believe the changes to CEAA will establish a regulatory framework that assures one project, one assessment. This will minimize duplication of process, improve timelines, and free up federal resources to tackle projects with the potential for greater environmental consequences.

Mr. Terry Toner, of the Canadian Electricity Association, pointed to the efficiencies that would result from this legislation without compromising environmental protection. This is what he had to say:

The efficiencies realized by the changes in Bill C-38 will in no way diminish the efforts and actions of the Canadian Electricity Association's member companies in protecting the environment throughout project design, construction, and operation.

Mr. Warren Everson, from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, said:

I think the establishment of timeframes is very critical for all parties.

There has nevertheless been much debate about the impact of Bill C-38 on protection of the environment. I want to devote my remaining time to this, the third pillar of responsible resource development.

The facts are clear. Bill C-38 will strengthen environmental assessment and, in doing so, the federal government's ability to protect the environment.

The Minister of the Environment has spoken in the House and elsewhere about the importance of enforcement. I want to expand on what he has already said.

The existing Canadian Environmental Assessment Act does not have enforcement provisions. Environmental groups have long noted this gap. A Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development identified the lack of enforcement provisions as a matter of concern in 2003. This issue was raised again during the statutory review of the act this past year by the standing committee.

The proposals in Bill C-38 address the enforcement gap in three ways.

First, a decision statement will be issued at the end of an environmental assessment. It will contain conditions that are binding on the proponent.

Second, there is authority for federal inspectors to ensure these conditions are being met.

Third, there are financial penalties of $100,000 to $400,000 for violations of the act, such as a failure to fulfill the conditions set out in the decision statement.

The bill also proposes a new tool to address the challenge of addressing cumulative effects. Currently the act is restricted to a single-project focus. This makes it difficult to assess cumulative effects, particularly in a region experiencing significant development through multiple projects and activities. Bill C-38 includes new authority for the Minister of the Environment to launch regional environmental assessments in co-operation with another jurisdiction. These studies will provide a better understanding of cumulative effects. This in turn will lead to the development of better mitigation measures.

Mr. Pierre Gratton, of the Mining Association of Canada, supports these regional approaches. He is not alone. He recently said:

This was a significant recommendation we had made, and I think has been overlooked by many as an important environmental improvement.... I think environmental groups and industry have been calling for this type of measure for many years and it is in this legislation.

There are other ways that Bill C-38 will strengthen environmental protection. For example, by moving from over 40 responsible authorities to just three, the government is focusing resources and creating true centres of expertise for environmental assessment.

To sum up, I want to emphasize that the four pillars of responsible resource development set out complementary objectives. It is possible to deliver timely, high-quality environmental assessments in a manner that avoids duplication. It is possible to make timely permitting decisions. It is possible to consult aboriginal peoples in a meaningful way.

Bill C-38 would provide the tools to make this happen.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have in front of me copies of a number of letters to the Prime Minister that I have received from constituents in Victoria. I would like to quote from the first of these letters and see if I can get a comment from my colleague on it. The letter is addressed to the Prime Minister. It says:

Dear Prime Minister

I have come to the conclusion that you do not intend to run for office in the next federal election. I have arrived at that supposition because by the year 2015 the damage you have wrought on Canadian society and the environment that sustains us will far outweigh any economic benefits of the policies you have pursued.

The letter goes on to say:

What's more, there is no guarantee that your government pension will be secure. You and that flock of sheep you call a government will have so far eroded the tax base with tax breaks for the rich and corporations and the reduction of jobs—virtually cancelling opportunities for our sons and daughters—that retirement in Canada may not be an option.

I would like to get some comments from my colleague on that.

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I want to remind members who are reading comments that any unparliamentary language contained in the letter is not allowed. What is not allowed directly cannot be spoken indirectly.

The hon. member for Richmond Hill.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank you for that clarification. I want to thank the hon. member for reading that epistle from an obviously very partisan constituent of his.

Let me just say this: we are very proud of the significant steps we have taken as a government under the leadership of our Prime Minister, who has led Canada to be one of the most successful economic countries in the world.

As a matter of fact, Canada today is first among the G7 countries. The International Monetary Fund is projecting that Canada will continue its leadership role over the next two years.

There are so many wonderful things happening. Canada was one of the first countries to come out of the global economic crisis, and we believe we are on the right track toward a balanced budget that this Prime Minister has led our nation to.

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

Madam Speaker, far beyond the process that many have talked about here today, the uncertainties created by the measures in the budget are vast.

Could my colleague clear up just one aspect? The questions that have been raised around EI are many, but this question is very simple, and I could do with a yes-no answer on this one.

We talk about EI claimants having to take suitable work. I have received inquiries from many in organized labour, from people in the building trades across the country who go from job to job and receive benefits in between. Will they have to take non-union jobs or risk losing their benefits? if they leave one union job and, let us say, the fish plant needs an electrician, will that union carpenter have to take that non-union job or otherwise risk losing his or her benefits?

Perhaps the hon. member could clarify that for the people who have contacted my office about that issue.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Indeed, Madam Speaker, in part 4, division 43 of the EI Act is being amended, but it is looking at the many critical points that are very needed at this juncture.

It includes aligning the calculation of EI benefit amounts with local labour market conditions, the refund of premiums to self-employed persons, the administration of overpayment of benefits, the assignment of benefits and the premium rate setting. Specifically in response to the hon. member's question, I would like to add this: it is important for us to try to get as many people as possible back to work once they lose their job.

Let me just say that since 2009, 750,000 net new jobs have been created by this government under the leadership of our Prime Minister.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not happy to be getting up here today and talking about Bill C-38 in the form in which it is before us, an assault on democracy resulting from a 452-page omnibus bill that would change over 70 pieces of legislation.

My colleagues on the other side can ooh and aah and all the rest of it, but I can say that when they were on this side of the House and the Liberals introduced what they called an omnibus bill—which was far less than what we have here, because we did not have all these changes to legislation—they hollered, screamed and banged the tables. I think we are very calm on this side and directly addressing the points that are giving us concern.

It would be one thing to bring forward a 452-page document called a “budget” in September and work from September through to June on it. That would be plenty of time for all of the committees and the rest of us to examine it. However, the Conservatives are clearly using this omnibus bill, which they have called a “budget”, to get through everything they want to clean up everywhere.

It will change 70 pieces of legislation. The omnibus bill will change the face of Canada.

If the Conservatives had the confidence level that they should have as the governing party, they would have sent the bill to committee, given us lots of time to examine it and accepted some of the amendments that would have come out at committee level, which probably would have improved some of it. Maybe some of it would never have come back into the House. That would have shown that they had respect for democracy in this country.

There is no minority-government concern hanging over our heads as we had previously, so there was lots of time to debate and discuss the bill. It is not as though the government has anything so pressing on its agenda that it has to shove this bill through today. The Conservatives could have separated the bill into a variety of different areas.

Clearly this is a Reform-style document that forgets democracy. The Conservatives can go abroad and talk about democracy in other countries around the world and tell them how they have to become more democratic and provide votes and opportunities. Here at home, quite frankly, what is happening is becoming an embarrassment.

I have done some traveling overseas this last little while, and I was asked by very many people what has happened to Canada when it comes to issues of human rights or how Canadians are being treated. Clearly there are questions around the world about our country and what has happened to it.

When we used to travel around the world, we were very proud to say that we were from Canada, that we were Canadians. I am not getting that sense back from people now. They are all asking what happened to Canada. They are seeing a significant change.

Well, that is what happens with governments: people elect them. Unfortunately, this election was clearly interfered with, which is something that I suspect Elections Canada will give us more information on. We know already that there were clearly some disparities and ongoing issues in some of the ridings.

However, we move beyond that because we respect democracy in Canada. We would like to think that everybody does the right thing and is honest and straightforward. Clearly, from what we are hearing, it does not sound as though that was the case.

The reality is that we have a majority government today. One of the government members was saying to me yesterday that there will be no election until October 14, 2015. Even when I questioned, there was no chance of an election before then. Well, everything is in the power of the Prime Minister, and he can decide tomorrow, for whatever reason, to have an election. However, if the government is so confident of not having an election until sometime in October of 2015, what is the pressure and the worry that it has to change EI today?

The changes the Conservatives would make would affect so much, including the temporary foreign workers who come over to work on farms and in the agricultural industry. Many of them have been coming to this country to work on farms in Canada for many years; now, all of a sudden, that door is closed for them, even though many of the farmers are saying that they will not be able to get enough workers. By the time they get around to responding to all of this process, their season will be over. That will clearly be a significant problem for their economy.

When we are looking at the changes to EI, seasonal work is a big part of Canada. There are weather issues. Who is going to do all of the seasonal work if the fishers in Newfoundland or New Brunswick are told that they cannot work seasonally any more and they have to go out west or wherever to find a job? Who is going to do the fishing if they all take full-time jobs out west? There are an awful lot of implications. I can appreciate the intent of what the government wants to do, but I do not think it has been thought through as thoroughly as it could have been.

I will now talk about seniors for a few minutes. I am the critic for the seniors file and have spent a lot of time calling on the government to give them more help and additional funds. What does it do? It decides it is going to increase the age for accessing old age security by another two years. Is that happening tomorrow? We have closure on this bill and we have to shove it through. We are going to be up for two or three nights voting because there is an urgency for this 452-page document to be passed this week, when all it would take to satisfy the opposition would be to break up the bill and allow parts of it to have more debate at committee.

On the issue of changing the date of entitlement for old age security, other countries are changing it, but those countries have a pension that makes up 60% to 70% of what people were earning before. It has a huge hit on the GDP. Here in Canada we have a very modest pension system when people reach 65, which is about 25%, or 2.1% of the GDP. It is a very small amount. It is a recognition of the money people paid in taxes and it is going back to them, plus the CPP, and for some, the OAS.

If we consider all of those amounts and that people are now going to have to wait until age 67, it means that every Canadian under the age 54 will be losing $15,000 a year for two years, which amounts to $30,000. The government talks about not raising taxes and all of that stuff, but it is a pretty big tax hit when people lose $30,000 out of their gross net income over the period of their lifetime. Members should not say that is an easy thing to deal with. That is going to have a huge impact on a lot of Canadians, but it is a long way away, so why is there a need to push this bill through by using closure? There is no rationale for it, other than the fact that the government wants it done. The government wants to do things its way and it is going to push it through whether we like it or not. A lot of Canadians who watch these proceedings really do not understand why it is necessary to do that.

Aside from the fact that this is clearly an abuse of power and an assault on democracy, all Canadians should be enraged. We live in this peaceful country and people do not know what is coming until they knock on the door, whether it is a seniors issue, an environmental issue or an EI issue. When people need the services of the government or see that the country itself is eroding is when they start asking questions. Otherwise, the streets would be filled with people protesting.

Let us look at the changes to the environmental regulations. It is very important that we protect the environment, but what is the government doing? It is practically deregulating everything and removing all of the environmental protections and safeguards that would better protect all of us, and our kids and grandkids in the future. A lot of the impacts as a result of this budget are not going to be felt for years to come, and that is exactly what the government wants. The government wants to get this through quietly with as little trouble as possible, and then go on to dismantle the country.

The Prime Minister said several times that if he had an opportunity to become prime minister, he would change the face of Canada. There is a quote somewhere by the current Prime Minister. That is exactly what he is doing, step by step, a little at a time so Canadians do not get too alarmed. He is moving forward on changing our country, exactly what he said when he was the head of the Reform Party, not the head of the Conservatives.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's presentation, although I do not agree with the premise of her speech.

We were elected to the House, as the member indicated, to get things done. This budget implementation bill is a function of what was in the budget. The budget is the policy document. The implementation bill puts things into action to make required changes.

Which clauses in this bill would the member support if they were moved out of the bill and voted on separately? I want to know which parts of the budget implementation bill the Liberals actually support.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, we all welcome change.

However, this is the Parliament of Canada. This is not the Parliament of the Conservative Party. The 308 members in this chamber were elected to represent our country and Canadians. That means we should be part of the decision-making. That means when a bill goes to committee, there are lengthy discussions with Canadians and with organizations and agencies on what is the best way for Canada to move forward.

If the government wants to have pension reform, then some time should be spent consulting across Canada on what is the best way to move forward on pension reform. It should not just be decided that the age is going to be moved up to 67. That is not the appropriate way to do things. That is the way the Reform Party said it would do it, and sure enough, that is exactly what it is doing.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments about the lack of consultation on this bill. It is a huge omnibus bill which includes changes to 70 pieces of legislation. Just one of those pieces of legislation would be significant.

I have a letter in my hands from Jim Harvey of Victoria. He is writing to the Prime Minister. He is concerned about the lack of consultation as well. He said:

I am writing you this letter to voice my opposition to Bill C-38. I am very concerned that a budget bill has so many other pieces of legislation attached to it that should not be there. Of particular concern to me is the power given to cabinet concerning final decisions about large energy projects. This is too much power [in their] hands....

This is a democracy! Please let our MPs debate this omnibus bill piece by piece and vote on each section of this bill separately.

We have called on the government to consider that and it flat out rejected it. I am wondering if my hon. colleague can comment on that approach.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, if the government really had confidence in the pieces of legislation it is proposing to change, it would not have had a problem defending it. Clearly, the government does not have that confidence, so it has thrown 70 pieces of legislation into an omnibus bill.

This is supposed to be a budget bill, items that clearly affect the budget, but the government has included everything but the kitchen sink in it. Clearly it is not going to be good for the country. We are prepared to do whatever is necessary on behalf of Canadians to fight to get the government to do what is right.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Madam Speaker, this morning in the natural resources committee, we heard testimony about the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act. It was very revealing to see how it was arrived at. It was supported by industry, environmental groups, labour groups, and all kinds of players in Yukon society. It took three to four years to craft it. It is in complete contradistinction to what the government is doing here.

I think the government could take a page and learn from the Yukon experience to come up with a better regulatory process, improve it, which is something we all want to see for Canadians, but do it in a way that is inclusive, meaningful, consultative, and end up with a process that everyone believes in.

Perhaps my colleague could respond to that.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is the way things are supposed to get done. In my 25 years in political life, we have had good success when we have done exactly as the hon. member has suggested. One brings all the affected people together to design a plan and a program. That is how one moves forward. That is the way one has true success, not by deciding in a backroom on the way one wants to go.

We do not have the money, anyway. The Conservatives are starving the government for revenue. At the rate they are going, between the GST reductions and other reductions, government is not going to have enough money to function. That will be their rationale as to why they will have to do other cuts, because they do not have the money to do the oversight required.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to debate the government's budget implementation bill, Bill C-38, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act.

This is a very necessary bill. Procedurally, it follows the adoption of a very important budget that continues to move us on a low-tax track for jobs and growth. This builds on that. Of course, the government is razor focused on the economy. The government was given a strong mandate by Canadians to be focused that way.

The results speak well. There have been nearly 760,000 net new jobs, 90% of them full-time, since the height of the great recession. We have received international praise for our policies and the trend of our economy by the OECD and the IMF, among others. All three major credit rating agencies, Moody's, Fitch and Standard and Poor's, have reaffirmed our top credit rating. There are no issues in that regard, unlike other countries in the world.

Of course, we recognize that more can be done. There is an opportunity to do even more. There are Canadians who are still unemployed. We also recognize statistics from last year. There were some 250,000 unfilled jobs in Canada. We clearly have a need to connect Canadians to labour force realities here in Canada, even within their own labour markets. That is why we need greater efficiency with the employment insurance program.

We still have challenges to face with respect to improving our productivity and innovation. We are in a competition in the 21st century for not only global capital investment but for the most talented minds, those with the talent and skills sets from around the world, if we are going to persist in having a first world economy and first world standard of living by extension.

Now that we have passed the budget, it is important that we pass the implementation act to implement our far-reaching economic action plan 2012. We need to pass it now, not weeks or months from now. It is important that we pass it now.

By way of process, budgets are long-ranging in terms of their consultation. We started consulting extensively last fall. The budget itself was tabled some four months ago. We have had all kinds of debate about the direction of the country.

We have had lengthy debate already in the House of Commons. A full committee and an additional subcommittee conducted hearings with respect to the various aspects of this implementation act. I was able to participate in part of that. I spoke with the Retail Council of Canada, the Canadian Auto Workers Union and others.

I think the NDP members themselves probably agree we do not need any more debate on that. After all, yesterday they voted against sitting until midnight, so clearly they are not interested in debate any longer.

It is also important to pass the bill now because there are threats to the global economy still looming. In the United States unemployment is up recently. The eurozone woes are extremely well known. We do not want to delay implementing the budget and getting on with growing our economy.

There is context for the current budget implementation bill. Budget 2012 builds on previous budgets. There is a real logic to what the government has been doing through the economic action plan in 2009, the subsequent low-tax plan for jobs and growth. One could even go back further.

At the end of this month it will be eight years that I have been here and have been privileged to be the hon. member of Parliament for Essex.

In 2007 we brought in a budget and laid out a vision document called Advantage Canada. We tackled four major challenges: high Liberal taxes on business investment; low business investment, particularly in equipment and machinery technology; a skills shortage; and the forecasted rapid decline of the population over the coming decades.

We proposed five major advantages. First, a tax advantage, or as we like to think, a low-tax advantage. We have reduced all kinds of taxes and we continue to do that. Second, a fiscal advantage. Third, an entrepreneurial advantage, cutting red tape, which is a key move for ensuring our businesses move forward. Fourth, a knowledge advantage, so we could have the best educated, most skilled and most flexible workforce in the world. Fifth, an infrastructure advantage.

We brought in the Building Canada plan, which was an extensive seven-year, comprehensive infrastructure plan with many components to it. It has been helping to renovate and modernize our infrastructure not just for quality of life issues, but also to suit our economy moving forward. We are committed to that.

We brought in the borders and gateways fund as well. We have been acting consistently. Economic action plan 2012 continues to follow in that direction.

We need to pass Bill C-38 now for another reason that is a little more local for me and the Windsor Essex economy. There is a 9.9% unemployment rate, although that is down from well over 15% at the height of the great recession.

There is room for improvement. We need further economic development and diversification. We need to connect those who are unemployed with available jobs in the local workforce. The proposed EI changes, for example, become very clear. We need to give more job information to those individuals who are on EI claims, many of whom think they are faithfully pursuing their responsibilities by looking at job banks. Job banks show only a fraction of the jobs that are available to them.

We are connecting the temporary foreign worker program to the EI program so that permits for foreign workers are not given until local workers have an opportunity to connect to that. That is important. I look at the greenhouse industry in my district and the high tech industry. The high tech industry provides good-paying jobs, yet there may be people who are not aware that jobs are available in that sector.

We are proposing sensible reforms.

There is also responsible resource development. The opposition is positive that resource development is not a good thing for the Ontario economy. Nothing could be further from the truth. I look at a company like Southwestern Manufacturing that made its exclusive fame at the time in the auto industry until tough times came to the auto industry. What has it done? The company has diversified. It has gone to the mining industry and the oil and gas industry. It does heavy machining, which is an easily transferrable skill from the auto sector to the needs of the economy. Half a trillion dollars in responsible resource development: that is a huge amount of investment potential in resource projects in the next 10 years. Mining is one of the fastest growing sectors in Canada. It provides good-paying jobs for Canadians.

There is a responsible and balanced way to do this. How do we do responsible development? These measures are important for my region as well.

Innovation is important. I believe it was a former Chrysler executive who once said that the future of the auto industry was the six inches between our ears. When other countries are pulling back in a mode of austerity on innovation, this government is doubling down on that investment, doubling IRAP and focusing on commercialization. These are all important measures, because innovation will drive high-paying jobs for the future, not just for my region but right across this country.

I urge the opposition to reconsider and support Bill C-38.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Madam Speaker, an article from the National Post states:

The sight of oil oozing into an Alberta river from a leaky pipeline is a visual the Conservatives could have done without, as their omnibus budget bill reached Parliament for a final vote. They must be praying no one finds any oil-covered ducks.

The bill, among other things, makes it easier to gain approval to build pipelines under rivers, similar to the Plains Midstream Canada pipeline currently spilling oil into the Red Deer River.

I want to ask the member how this bill would help monitor and enforce pipeline security to avoid oil spills in—

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. The hon. member for Essex.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is from a member of a party that wants a moratorium on oil sands expansions. The NDP members have said that long and clear. They would rather not have the investment. They would rather not have the job growth there. So they use environmentalism as a means of saying that we should not have any responsible resource development. However, instead this implementation act proposes a balanced way forward. It would strengthen regulation because it would ensure that the government would not have to worry about small-scale projects, the minor everyday projects, and instead could focus its efforts on the types of enhancements and oversight.

I was at the oil sands a number of years ago with the environment committee. I have seen it. We have enhanced the monitoring of water quality and other things in the region. This is a government that looks out for the environment. We can do it in a way that is smart enough to move this economy forward. That is why those members need to support this particular bill.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, how does the hon. member square the circle? The Conservatives have had two on the books already that had to go back to the drawing board, but in their throne speech they said they were going to bring in a new Fisheries Act. Then they took these fisheries provisions and jammed them into this bill. How do they square that circle?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Fisheries Act is very important to my region as well. We keep hearing “coast to coast to coast”. There is a fourth coast in this country and that is the Great Lakes, Ontario's entire southern border being water based. We have a commercial fishery in the western basin of Lake Erie that is extremely valuable as an important breeding ground. What we need is DFO officials worried about that type of body of water, not a ravine or ditch that might get a bit of water at some point so somebody can float a kayak down there every six months or every few years. Yet that is where they are spending an enormous amount of time. Our changes to the Fisheries Act would focus our efforts on bodies of water and on the commercial fishery realities and not—

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I would like to give an opportunity for a last question.

The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona, a very brief last comment.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is hard to be brief on this. I sat with the hon. member for a while on the environment committee. I am a little stunned at the tally of jobs that he reiterated that the Conservatives created. Could the hon. member tell the House if the Conservatives are also keeping a running tally of the science jobs they would kill through their budget and budget implementation bill in fisheries, environmental protection, environmental assessment, reclamation, government, industry, the private sector and universities?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will only counter by saying that this implementation act would allow us to strengthen our oversight, whether of the environment or of fisheries, but to do it in a sensible way. It would allow us to do responsible resource development and all of these things in a way that allow sustainable development. We can grow the economy and that is a good thing, not using environmentalism as a means of trying to slow or eliminate development.

The opposition members opposed this immediately when we brought the budget out. It is no wonder they opposed the implementation act. We are not surprised. That is why we need to get on and have a vote on this.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Madam Speaker, it is a real pleasure to be able to join the debate on Bill C-38, the budget implementation act, our government's plan to keep Canada on course toward long-term growth and prosperity. I want to emphasize to my opposition colleagues in the NDP, the Liberal Party and others in this place that, through the measures that they have undertaken to delay this budget, they are in fact indicating that their concern is not with everyday Canadians who want to see long-term economic growth and prosperity in this country.

At a time when the global economy remains fragile, our government is focused and will remain focused on those Canadians hardest hit by the economic downturn by helping create and protect jobs.

When it comes to creating a job market that is strong and efficient, our government continues to take strong and responsible action. We talk a lot in this place about jobs. We talk about the importance of providing opportunity for everyday Canadians. How does a government do that? Clearly, a government does not hire each and every person who is looking for a job. We create an environment that attracts investment and opportunity and provides that opportunity to Canadians. So far, by any measure, this government's actions are clearly providing results for everyday Canadians.

Since 2009, I know that this number has been said many times in this place, employment has increased by over 760,000 net new jobs. We have said many times that it is the strongest job growth in the entire G7, but that is actually understating it. It is the strongest job performance in the G7 by a very wide margin. It is in no small part due to the measures in Canada's economic action plan dating back to January 2009. I was pleased to participate in the creation of the budget. I think frankly Canadians, generations from now, will look back and say that it was an incredible plan and an incredible document, and that the government of the day should be celebrated for its foresight. More than nine in ten jobs created since July 2009 have been full-time positions, and close to 80% of them are in high-wage industries in the private sector.

When we listen to what Moody's, a respected global credit rating agency, had to say about Canada we should all be encouraged as Canadians. It stated:

In the view of Moody's sovereign analysts, the Government of Canada's Aaa ratings are based on the country's very high degree of economic resiliency, its high government financial strength and its low susceptibility to event risk....The outlook for Canada's ratings is stable. The country was affected less than most other advanced economies by the global credit crisis and recession, and its government financial position remains comfortable.

However, we cannot rest on this success.

I just heard my hon. colleague from Essex speak a few moments ago. I know he is passionate about the southwestern Ontario economy and creating opportunity in that economy. His economy is not so different from mine. The foundational strength of my economy, originally founded locally, was in settling the land and in agriculture, but later grew. Along with the Canadian Pacific Railway, we grew a manufacturing base in Peterborough and in our region that has supported families and economic growth for generations.

However, we want not just to preserve that but to create growth in that sector. In Peterborough we have seen significant growth in our manufacturing sector, contrary to what members may hear. Through the Kawartha manufacturing initiatives, the Tri-Association Manufacturers Initiative, we have been able to create a significant number of jobs. We have done it with skills, with skills training, with innovation, all supported by this government and its economic action plan. That is how the next generation of manufacturing and the people who will manufacture those goods will find success in this country. We will do it by focusing on innovation and by investing with these companies and supporting them.

My colleague talked about the auto sector, but it is obviously much further and much broader reaching than just the auto sector, but we will also open markets.

So much of what we are working to do, not just in this document, but every day, and when we are focused on the economy, we are focused on opening up markets, providing opportunities and creating jobs right at home.

I want to go through a few measures in our economic action plan 2012. As I said, it reinforces the government's commitment to move toward an immigration system, which is focused on the economy as well, with the following three key steps, and this is also something that is very important in my region.

First, we will return applications and refund up to $130 million in fees to certain federal skilled worker applicants. This measure will improve responsiveness of Canada's immigration system by more immediately directing our efforts toward addressing modern labour market realities.

Second, we will work with the provinces and territories and other stakeholders to support further improvements of foreign credential recognition and to identify the next set of target occupations beyond 2012.

Third, we will continue to consider additional measures to strengthen and improve the temporary foreign worker program and we will help support economic recovery and growth by better aligning the program with labour market demands.

This is all part and parcel with our larger plan to ensure that we do not just create jobs, but that we have the skilled people we need and, frankly, the raw people power to support the growth of our economy. When our economy grows, it benefits all of us. It provides all of the funding for so many things that so many people in this place care about, whether it is health care, or education, or transfers to the provinces, or support for our foreign embassies and the many good activities that Canada undertakes through CIDA and other agencies, all of these things, all of the strengths that the federal government has is based on a strong economy, a strong labour market, a strong natural resources sector. It is critical.

It never ceases to amaze me that when we come forward with a plan like our economic action plan 2012, the opposition will find things that they claim for that reason and that reason alone they will vote against the entire document. I would argue that there are so many strong and important measures in this document. I do not see how members can vote against it.

When Canadians look at the government's overall approach toward providing and protecting the economy, toward creating long-term economic growth and prosperity, they will receive this budget as good news. They will support it. In the future, members in the House will be held accountable for how they voted on this very important document.

As I said, we have made great progress such as 760,000 net new jobs created and the growth in our GDP leads the G8. We continue to outperform comparable industrial economies. The focus of this government is to back the promise we made to Canadians.

There is one more sector that I want to address. It is agriculture. It seems often it gets lost among the debate in this place. It does not get mentioned as much as it should and it is so critically important to the well-being of our overall economy.

I have heard many people talk about the Fisheries Act and the changes to it. Farmers in my riding have come forward many times on these amendments and have said that they do not understand why, having farmed areas for generations, they would be harassed for regulations that do not make any sense. That is why we are making these changes. That is why I am proud to support them.

I am proud to support this budget. It contains important measures for the people of Peterborough and, indeed, for the people of Canada.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's comments. I was struck with this notion that there is this and that so therefore we should support it.

Conservatives cannot get their head around the fact that Canadians are quite upset and outraged right now at the way this is being done. It is about separating the bill. It is about what one MP once said should be done in the House. He said, referencing another omnibus bill:

Dividing the bill into several components would allow members to represent views of their constituents on each of the different components in the bill. The bill contains many distinct proposals and principles and asking members to provide simple answers to such complex questions is in contradiction to the conventions and practices of the House.

That was the Prime Minister, and he was making a very salient argument. It was about taking a bill, which was smaller than this one, and asking members of Parliament to make decisions on things of which they did not know the consequences because they had not done their homework was irresponsible and undemocratic.

Why does the member stand and not reference what is a very cogent argument, that we should simply separate the bills and do our job respectfully, smartly and listen to Canadians?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am surprised by what I am hearing in this debate, which is not being heard, for example, in the Ontario legislature. I know the member is aware of the current budget bill that is being passed in the province of Ontario with the support of Andrea Horwath of the Ontario NDP. That is also comprehensive legislation. In fact, I believe the overall document is only about 20 pages shorter than our budget document. It is very comparable in size. I think the Government of Ontario recognizes, as we do, that there is a need for speed.

Government must be focused on the economy. These are not normal times that we live in and we must preserve Canada's advantages. We must continue to push forward, creating opportunity for long-term growth, economic prosperity and jobs in our country.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about holding people accountable and members being accountable for their actions. I am wondering when the member is going to be held accountable and table the documents which he referred to in a newspaper article on Saturday. We are still waiting for those documents. He has a chance to be accountable. When is he going to let us know when he is going to do that?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are having a conversation about the budget, but I will answer the member's question. As I said, all of the expenditures that were incurred by my campaign and, indeed, by my association are fully reflected in all of my filings with Elections Canada. I will be providing all documentation to support that in due course.

The member has indicated that he will vote against this budget. In fact, he has not supported any of the measures that we have undertaken in support of Newfoundland and Labrador, whether it was Muskrat Falls, the new ships for Marine Atlantic, sealers or the tradition of seal hunting. People know they cannot count on the Liberal Party in Newfoundland and Labrador, but they can count on the Conservative Party of Canada to support them, as we have in the past.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the MP for Peterborough, who is one of the best MPs that Peterborough has ever had. He is hard working. He put things forward and explains the importance of the budget to his constituents.

Could he comment on the ideology about playing “silly bugger” with all of these amendments, as the Toronto Sun said? No matter what we do, the NDP will vote against it. This budget is about jobs. We are trying to create jobs. The leader of the NDP called jobs a disease. Could my colleague comment on the silliness of this and ideology behind it. Does he have any explanations for the silliness?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Speaker, since I have been elected, we have always referred to spring, which has been joyfully acknowledged by those in the press and others, as silly season. This is just an extra silly season.

I have heard members of the opposition opine about democracy. It just occurred to me that we will have an awful lot more democracy this spring than we have had in other years. We are going to vote an awful lot more. I will be here exercising my democratic right and that of my constituents, standing up for jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity. I do not care how many votes there are.

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for St. John's East, Search and Rescue; the hon. member for St. Paul's, 41st General Election.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is with a rather heavy heart that I rise in the House to speak to Bill C-38.

Not only do I oppose the content of this bill, but I also strongly oppose how the government has gone about getting it through the House.

I was very idealistic when I arrived in the House of Commons barely a year ago. I truly believed in the goodwill of this government, which had just been elected to do politics differently. I realize that the reality is altogether different and that the government wants to push through bills of this magnitude without consultation or consideration by committees and the House.

I oppose this bill because I believe it will have serious consequences not just on jobs, but also on growth and long-term prosperity. In fact, this government is not investing in the economy of the future, but rather in the economy of the past.

In my opinion, this bill is not in the best interest of Canadians and does not reflect the fact that the government must work for the common good.

Canada must foster economic development in a way that respects the principle of sustainable development and promotes the development of our communities and our environment.

It is with this in mind that the NDP has been calling on the government for several years now to reform and modernize the Investment Canada Act, one of the main components of our economic regulatory system. I am talking about it today because this bill includes changes to the Investment Canada Act.

Although the NDP has been calling for an overhaul of the Investment Canada Act for several years, and although a motion was unanimously adopted by the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology to review the Investment Canada Act—I am on that committee, so I should know—this has not been done. Instead, the government continues to hide certain changes to that act within this omnibus bill.

Thus, with so many things going on, the government is modifying the Investment Canada Act bit by bit and without really carefully studying the consequences this will have on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

The government promised to tighten up the Investment Canada Act a long time ago, but I am disappointed that it has decided to include these changes in the budget implementation bill, instead of going ahead with the consultations it had promised.

The act will now enable the government to disclose the reasons why it would oppose a foreign acquisition, but the act already sets out some exceptions. The government will first have to consult the company in question and refrain from disclosing the reasons why it opposes the purchase if it would cause prejudice to the company. The changes included in Bill C-38 will also allow a penalty in the form of a security, and not just money, to be imposed on firms found to violate a country's legislation.

The government's proposed amendments to the Investment Canada Act are only minor corrections, when we consider the scope of the challenges.

The biggest amendment made to the act by the government was not made through Bill C-38 but through the regulations. So it is appropriate that I mention it in the context of this speech, given that the government continues to make amendments to the act without going through Parliament or the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, which would be the appropriate forum.

When foreign investors are buying a Canadian company, an assessment is conducted under the Investment Canada Act. The assessment threshold is currently $300 million, depending on the value of the company's assets. On May 25, 2012, the Minister of Industry announced that, in four years, the threshold would increase to $1 billion, depending on the value of the business. This new measure was based on the recommendations of a committee that submitted a report in June 2008 entitled "Compete to Win". I note that it was not the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology that made these recommendations or a committee of parliamentarians, but an ad hoc committee, if I may call it that.

This announcement will have fairly significant consequences on the possibility of keeping Canadian companies, especially the medium-sized or larger companies, because there will be no review under the Investment Canada Act.

The Globe and Mail recently published an in-depth report on the disappearance of Canada's medium-sized businesses. Canada has many small businesses, but we seem to be losing more and more of our medium-sized businesses, particularly in the manufacturing sector.

These announcements and changes to the Investment Canada Act were made—I repeat—without MPs' approval and with no real discussion by the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. They will have negative consequences on several sectors of our economy and on Canada's ability to help medium-sized businesses thrive and to keep them in our economy.

Long-term prosperity means long-term jobs. Helping our manufacturing sector to flourish, particularly medium-sized businesses in that sector, is in Canada's best interest. These industries take root in their communities and become active partners in the regions. They will provide long-term jobs, which lead to long-term growth and prosperity.

This is troubling. The government keeps talking about 750,000 new jobs, but let us take a closer look at that number. Those 750,000 jobs have been created since the lowest point of the recession following the loss of 430,000 jobs during the recession. That means we have about 320,000 net new jobs since the beginning of the recession. Yet the number of people in the job market grew by approximately 600,000 during that period. That is why our unemployment rate is still much higher than it was before the recession. It is currently 7.3%.

We are not currently creating enough jobs to keep pace with growth.

I could go on at length about how this bill will have negative consequences on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech. It seems she is so far off track about what the world needs and what Canada needs. We are trying to focus on job creation.

I would like to quote from the Toronto Sun to illustrate the point:

As Europe stands poised on the brink of a disastrous economic wildfire that could blacken the world, the [NDP leader's] hypocrisy and self-obsession is in full flame...vowing to delay the passing of [economic action plan 2012] by playing silly bugger...with amendments and procedure....This is nothing but grandstanding....This is a budget designed to create jobs and inspire economic growth, and it comes to the House of Commons at a moment that can only be described as the 11th hour of a global economic conflagration....Right now, there is only one enemy in our fight to protect Canada from the repercussions of Europe's burning. And it's...[the NDP leader]. This is inarguable.

This is an important piece of legislation to get through.

I am curious. Have any of the NDP members actually run a business before? Have any of them had to meet payroll? Can any of them actually show that they understand what job creation is? Could those members stand now? I do not see any of them standing right now.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am standing up to denounce that source, that media source.

However, we know that The Globe and Mail did a story that points exactly to what I have said, that we are about to lose a major sector of our economy. A strong economy is based on a resource sector, a manufacturing sector, a service sector, as well as investments in the knowledge economy.

This bill denies those realities. This bill denies science. It reduces grants for fundamental scientific research. It is destroying our manufacturing sector. I have said enough.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on her speech. It was very informative. It is great to hear the NDP talking about the economy and jobs, and starting to show more concern for that very area.

The government keeps talking about all of these jobs that it creates, but from all the numbers I can see certainly in the province of Ontario, a lot of those jobs are part-time jobs. When the government talks about 700,000 jobs, it is probably 700,000 part-time jobs. It is certainly not 700,000 full-time jobs. Maybe the government is only looking out west and not at the rest of Canada.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think there is something very important that we need to do. We have to look to the future. We have to look ahead to tomorrow's economy. There are all sorts of new jobs that we can create in an economy that takes environmental protection into account, meaning that we can take advantage of the challenge of protecting the environment and of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to innovate and promote technologies that will make it possible to have attractive and well-paid jobs across Canada, from sea to sea. There are some very interesting and exciting opportunities.

This government is not interested in looking to the future. It is interested in looking back at the past and continuing in a flawed economy.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Labour]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-38.

Jobs, growth and long-term prosperity are at the heart of this bill, which comes as Canada is emerging from the global economic downturn and facing increased competition in the global marketplace. Fortunately, we are facing these challenges from a position of strength.

Our government pledged in the Speech from the Throne that we would promote a stable low-tax environment, develop a highly skilled and flexible workforce, support innovation, and expand access to markets abroad. Bill C-38 is the next step in delivering on those promises to Canadians.

The Government of Canada's priorities are also the priorities of the labour program. The labour program is cutting red tape. It is modernizing and streamlining its operations, as well as consolidating some programs and activities. The cost-saving measures within the labour portfolio will result in savings of $16.7 million. At the same time, we are continuing to fulfill our mandate to promote a fair, safe, productive workplace, and facilitate co-operative labour relations in federally regulated private industries.

I will begin by describing what Bill C-38 will mean for the federal labour portfolio. When businesses go bankrupt, many people suffer, but some of the most unfortunate are those former employees who were entitled to long-term disability pensions and indeed were receiving long-term disability pensions. Bankruptcies can lead to the reduction or even complete loss of long-term disability benefits when there are insufficient funds to cover the outstanding claims. Economic action plan 2012 proposes to require that going forward, federally regulated private sector employers insure on a go-forward basis, as I said, any long-term disability plans for employees. This will provide additional financial security to these individuals and their families when they need it most.

The new provisions for long-term disability plans complement the support our government already gives workers through the wage earner protection plan, WEPP. The WEPP was introduced in 2008 to provide timely compensation to workers in federally regulated industries for unpaid wages and vacation pay they had earned in the six months preceding their employer's bankruptcy or receivership.

We expanded the WEPP in 2009 to protect severance and termination pay, and again in 2011 to cover workers whose employers had to restructure without success. The recent expansion is estimated to provide an additional $4.5 million annually in support to workers affected by the bankruptcy or receivership of their employer. Through economic action plan 2012, we are proposing to add $1.4 million annually in operating funds to ensure that WEPP applicants receive the benefits they are entitled to when they need them.

I would also like to briefly mention some other economic action plan 2012 measures that will increase efficiency and get better value for Canadians. Among the changes, the federal contractors program will be redesigned, and that will streamline the program requirements. The initiative is part of the Government of Canada's deficit reduction action plan, and it will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of government operations and programs to ensure value for taxpayers.

The obligation for employers to meet employment equity goals will now be placed directly in the contract as a mandatory clause, and failure to meet the obligations shall constitute a breach of the contract. As such, federal contractors that wish to contract with the Government of Canada will be required to meet employment equity obligations. Modernizing the federal contractors program will reduce the administrative burden on contractors. That, of course, was a key recommendation of the Red Tape Reduction Commission.

We also propose to amend the Status of the Artist Act to transfer the function of the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal, or CAPPRT, to the Canadian Industrial Relations Board. The CAPPRT currently supports constructive labour relations between federally regulated producers and self-employed artists, but there has been a considerable decline in CAPPRT's case activity over the past five years. Indeed, each year since 2006-07, the tribunal has only received slightly more than one new application, and averaged fewer than one day of hearings.

As a consequence, the government has decided to transfer CAPPRT's powers, duties and functions to the CIRB. With this amendment, the existing framework for labour relations in the federal cultural sector would remain in place, with the CIRB continuing the work of the tribunal and promoting and supporting professional relations between artists and producers.

By transferring CAPPRT's powers, duties and functions to the CIRB, the government is ensuring that an experienced and competent body remains to oversee the relationship between artists and producers in the federal jurisdiction, but it would do so while generating cost savings and improvements to administrative efficiency. We fully expect that this transfer would result in both improved services and reduced delays in resolving cases, while not directly impacting the artists themselves.

We are also proposing to modify the Government Employees Compensation Act to streamline and improve administration of third party claims and to enhance efficiency in the federal public sector. Workers' benefits would be unaffected by this adjustment, but the amendment would allow crown corporations to pursue third party claims under the act and that would reduce overall labour program administration costs for third party claims.

Finally, we are also planning to repeal the outdated Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, which was enacted in 1935 at a time when very few regulations existed to protect workers. At one point in time, it did serve a useful purpose, but today it no longer plays a significant role in protecting workers. The reality is that federal construction contracts today account for only 2% of non-residential construction work in Canada compared to 1955 when it was 11%. As well, the provinces and territories already regulate wages and working conditions in the construction sector. In many respects, the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act duplicate existing provincial labour legislation.

Today, like all other workers in Canada, construction workers are protected by comprehensive provincial and territorial employment standards. They are also protected by human rights and by occupational health and safety laws of the provinces and territories. Therefore, repealing the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act supports our commitment to create jobs and fosters economic growth by eliminating red tape and duplication. It is part of our deficit reduction action plan and we seek to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of government operations and programs to ensure value for the taxpayer.

With respect to temporary foreign workers, prevailing wage rates are already set by HRSDC and Service Canada, and repealing the act will not change this.

In conclusion, the Government of Canada's priorities continue to be jobs and growth, and these are also the priorities of the labour program. Through Bill C-38, our government is looking to move forward on our commitment to make effective and efficient use of our resources in ways that respond to real needs.

I urge this House to support Bill C-38.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister whether Canadians will really be able to share in this growth. A number of constituents in my riding are losing tens of thousands of dollars from their pension funds because of lax federal laws.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Madam Speaker, our long-term vision within the Conservative government is exactly that, for jobs and growth. As we have heard many times today, we have posted over 760,000 new jobs and they are high-quality good jobs, not part-time jobs that the opposition alleges. I would invite the opposition members to look at the facts on this and get them straight.

We know that the economic action plans of the past have worked and we are very excited and proud of economic action plan 2012 because it takes that long-term look, which is the look that is needed for my constituents in Halton, as well as for my family.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I acknowledge with appreciation the changes in the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act that would help out those who are on long-term disability. The Liberal Party asked 100 questions if not more on that very issue. I am pleased to see that the government has listened to the voices on this side of the House and made those changes.

These changes were an important part of the changes that needed to happen to better protect both those who are disabled and those working for companies that go bankrupt and leave them with no protection. I appreciate the changes that the government has put in the budget bill.

On the issue of federal contractors, and there are over 1,000 of them and, it is my understanding that they would not have ministerial accountability or oversight. A federal contractor would have a contract with its employees, but how would the government ensure that the contract is being followed?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for her comments about our efforts to help the most vulnerable and those who are suffering because of a bankruptcy in a company.

With respect to the federal contractors program, the way it works right now is that federal contractors supply to the labour program a plan of action with respect to employment equity and how they intend to ensure that the employment equity standards of the government will be followed. However, there is no follow-up with the contractors as to whether they are implementing it. We rely upon a complaints-based system and that would not change. We would still have a complaints-based system, but this time we would have real teeth because it would be about the voiding of the contract by implementing it and putting it directly in the contract. The onus would be on the contractors at that point to be aware of and understand the Employment Equity Act, and we would expect them to abide by it. We also expect them to have a plan of action, but we do not ask them to provide and submit plans and bog down the process. We want them to contractually oblige themselves to it and we will follow up in terms of complaints and prosecute as warranted.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I first want to take the opportunity to thank the minister. As she knows, I am from Oshawa. A few weeks ago she took a very courageous position in regard to the rail challenges that we faced. Manufacturing and just in time delivery is very important to my community and I am happy to say that last month, in May, we actually increased the economy with 36,400 manufacturing jobs.

We are giving a very strong signal to the economy. We just have to compare this to socialist Europe and the problems that Europe is undergoing right now.

Could the minister tells us why is it important to continue on a program of jobs and growth, cutting red tape, decreasing taxes and working co-operatively with labour so that we have strong jobs as opposed to the outdated policies that the NDP is bringing forward, such as high taxes, increased regulation--

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I must give the hon. minister an opportunity to respond.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Madam Speaker, as we have indicated, the economic action plan is the forward look about ensuring that we continue to grow and prosper through the creation of jobs and the growth of the economy. However, as the Conservatives and this government believe, we should put the tools in the hands of the businesses to create the jobs, which is why it is important to have that low tax environment and to have a reduction of red tape. Those are the kinds of things that we are doing within the labour program. We are also supporting productive labour relations because innovation, quite simply, happens when there is a safe, productive and healthy workplace.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with legitimate indignation that I rise today to denounce the infamous Bill C-38, the budget implementation bill.

With this bill, we get the feeling that the Conservatives decided that Parliament was an open bar and attacked social programs, government, workers and families. It is a catch-all bill, a bulldozer bill, a Trojan Horse. Finally, this is an anti-worker, anti-environment and anti-family bill that does not respect our democratic institutions, that attacks key rights, and that attacks the least fortunate and lowest-income seniors in our society.

It is a catch-all bill. We feel that the Conservatives are taking a shot at everything that works and are taking advantage of the fact that they have a majority to destroy things that have been working well in our society. Based on where they are heading, everything will go to the private sector. Assessing environmental impact is not important. As long as there is development, everything is fine, and future generations will pick up the pieces. They will have to carry this economic debt, as well as this environmental debt on their shoulders.

This is unprecedented in Canadian political history. Officially, this is a budget implementation bill, but it changes no fewer than 70 existing pieces of legislation. The Conservatives are taking a shot at everything that moves.

In addition, the Conservatives imposed a gag order—in fact, it was the 23rd or 24th gag order. Members are not even being given much time to discuss this bill. The government is refusing to split up this bill, which is creating a completely absurd situation.

The NDP proposed having five bills instead of one single mammoth, gigantic and unmanageable bill, which was reasonable. For example, since this is officially a budget implementation bill, but it changes standards for protecting fish habitats, it is the members of the Standing Committee on Finance who are required to study the changes to the regulations on protecting fish habitats. Has anyone ever heard of anything so ludicrous or absurd?

Every decision made in this bill probably deserves days of study. The list of things that the government wants to change is impressive. The bill is supposedly for implementing the budget, but it is being used to destroy and attack a bunch of things that help workers and Canadian families. I am going to try to explain why.

Bill C-38 increases the age of eligibility for old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits from 65 to 67. We remember that the Prime Minister took advantage of a trip to Davos, Switzerland, to announce these changes in front of his billionaire friends, but one year earlier, he had not even told Canadians that he was going to attack our seniors' old age pensions.

Bill C-38 repeals the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, weakens the environmental assessment regimes, eliminates the Auditor General's oversight authority for a certain number of agencies and amends the Employment Equity Act so that it no longer applies to federal contracts. In addition, it dissolves the Public Appointments Commission, reduces transparency with respect to the assessment of major pipeline projects and puts more power in the hands of a single minister. Bill C-38 also dissolves the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, which was working well. Lastly, it eliminates the First Nations Statistical Institute.

So we can see the extent of what is in this mammoth bill, this Trojan Horse bill.

There is one more important matter that I would like to address. The Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act has also been amended. That act guaranteed minimum salaries, base salaries for workers on federal construction sites. Let me give you some examples. In Vancouver, an electrician could not be paid less than $26.20 per hour; a carpenter, $25.19 per hour. In Calgary, an electrician was paid at least $30 per hour and a steel assembler $24.12 per hour. It guaranteed working conditions, and therefore acceptable living conditions, for workers on those sites. The Conservatives are taking the act, tearing it up and telling employers that, from now on, they can pay their employees what they want. There are no more base salaries, no more minimums.

This very ideological and right-leaning Conservative government is constantly making decisions that put downward pressure on salaries. How are the Conservatives going to get the economy going again? By cutting salaries. This is a race to the bottom. This is how they want to build the future, to build a society that is fairer, more just, more united and more decent, a society in which people can live a good life.

When my father bought his house, it was worth twice his annual salary, the only salary. Today, houses cost 10 or 15 times an annual salary. The purchasing power of workers has either stagnated since the late 1970s or become worse. These Conservative and neo-Liberal policies are putting pressure on the salaries of workers, who still have to pay the bills and whose standard of living is not rising.

A family today cannot live on one salary alone. How is it possible that, in a society like ours, people working for minimum wage are below the poverty line? Is that really the kind of society we want to live in? It certainly is the kind of society that the Conservatives want to live in. On the Island of Montreal alone, the number of people asking for food assistance because they lack the means to put bread on the table has increased more than 40% since 2008.

The Conservatives may laugh, but in real life, it matters. In my constituency, 2,000 people are on the waiting list for social housing. What does Bill C-38 say about social housing? Nothing. Zero. Nada. There is nothing in this budget about helping people who are having difficulty paying their rent. When rent takes 50% of people's income, we have a problem. A problem that keeps people in poverty.

It is interesting that the word poverty does not appear in the nearly 300-page budget that the Minister of Finance tabled. That is one of the Conservatives' tricks. If they do not talk about it, then it does not really exist. I am sorry, but that is not how things work. There is no magic wand that makes poverty disappear just because we do not talk about it. There is nothing in this budget, in Bill C-38, to help fight poverty, on the contrary.

I now want to address the issue of temporary foreign workers. That is another example. I have talked about the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. What is in Bill C-38 for temporary foreign workers? Under this bill, temporary foreign workers can be paid 15% less than other workers for the same work. This is just more of the same Conservative policy to put downward pressure on the incomes of Canadians and Quebeckers.

Eugénie Depatie-Pelletier, the coordinator of a branch of CERIUM, the centre for international studies and research at Université de Montréal, said:

Temporary foreign workers, whose employment contracts are already being violated because of administrative restrictions on their fundamental freedoms, will now be subject to a new discriminatory measure.

According to the administrative directive posted online on April 25, 2012, by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada for temporary foreign workers in Canada with “high-skill” occupations, wages that are up to 15% below the average wage for an occupation in a specific region will be accepted. Various observers have said that this federal measure will ultimately contribute to an overall reduction in wages in Canada...

The constitutionality of this new federal Conservative measure will inevitably be challenged sooner or later in court. This measure is a concrete example of the government violating the right of a historically disadvantaged group—immigrant workers in this case—to be free from discrimination.

Furthermore, André Jacob, coordinator of the Observatoire international sur le racisme et les discriminations and an associate professor at the UQAM school of social work, said:

The argument that the local labour force does not want to do the work for which employers use foreign labour is a false premise. In fact, Canadians do not want to comply with the conditions imposed by companies that favour temporary foreign workers [because they work in horrible conditions]. Businesses want to be able to count on a low-cost workforce that is available at all times, submissive, non-unionized and [basically] without rights.

...The temporary foreign workforce is not a cargo of exotic products that can be purchased and sold with only profit in mind. These are human beings with rights. It should not be up to private businesses to protect the rights of all workers; it is the responsibility of the state.

We see the same thing with employment insurance reform. The government is pushing wages down and wants to force seasonal workers to accept jobs with wages 30% lower than what they earned before. The NDP will fight this Conservative government because we want people to be able to live with dignity.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we have expressed, time and time again over the last days and weeks, the concern we have in regard to Bill C-38 and how critically important it is that it be amended. The bill is severely flawed and it sets precedents in terms of budget bills. Many have accused it as being a Trojan Horse in terms of the manner in which the government is bringing in legislation that is completely irrelevant to the whole budget process and that we should be breaking this bill into a number of different bills and stick to the budget debate itself.

In response to the bill, the Liberal Party has brought forward a series of different amendments on which we will voting. I look to the member and I suspect the NDP will support our amendments. How does the member feel about the sheer number of pieces of legislation that this bill will have a very profound impact on, if it were to pass?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his question.

The NDP shares his concerns. Together with our House leader, we tried to split Bill C-38 into five separate parts so that we could take the time to study them and do our work as parliamentarians in a responsible way. We also submitted hundreds of amendments. We will see whether the Conservative government is willing to listen in order to improve this bill.

However, it is difficult to improve such a gigantic catch-all bill. This bill tackles a lot of issues and important rights: working conditions, environmental protection, seasonal workers. We think this is awful. We do not want to start punishing people because their industry operates for just a few months a year.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Madam Speaker, going back to my friend's comments about the fisheries and comments from all the members opposite, the hyperbole is simply overwhelming and one wonders if they have even read the act. Therefore, I will help them with what our new amended act would actually say.

Regarding the habitat provisions, section 35(1) says:

No person shall carry on any work, undertaking or activity that results in serious harm to fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery, or to fish that support such a fishery.

Again, “serious harm”, which was not defined in the previous act is now defined as, “For the purposes of this Act, serious harm to fish is the death of fish or any permanent alteration to, or destruction of, fish habitat”.

Has the member actually read the new act and does he not—

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I must give the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie an opportunity to respond.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague why he thinks the Standing Committee on Finance should study changes to fish habitat protection.

The Conservatives seem to think that it is no big deal for fish to swim in oil and that there is no problem until the fish are belly-up dead. They think it is okay to have three-eyed fish swimming around.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech about the Conservatives' plan to attack the middle class, environmental standards and especially seniors' needs.

Why do the Conservatives have to put all this in a budget bill when they are attacking senior citizens?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member on his excellent French.

Indeed, people who are working today will be able to retire and receive their old age security cheques two years later. That means that people who do not have the money to invest in RRSPs and who do not have a supplemental plan will have to work two years longer.

This is yet another attack on society's poorest and lowest-paid workers.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill C-38, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act, an act that the NDP and the opposition are attempting to delay and defeat.

From the start, let me be clear. The NDP and the opposition parties want to stop today's bill because of their ideological opposition to the natural resources sector and its growth. As a western Canadian and member of Parliament from Saskatchewan, I cannot allow these attacks from the NDP go unchallenged. That is why today I would like to focus on the Conservative government's plan for responsible resource development, a critical part of our economic action plan 2012. It is a forward-looking initiative. It is an initiative that would help ensure that all Canadians would reap the benefits of our wealth of natural resources.

Our government's top priority has always been to support jobs and growth in Canada's economy and we are on the right track with Canada's economic action plan. Indeed, since July 2009, employment has increased by almost 760,000 jobs, the strongest job growth among all of the G7 countries. We all want that job growth to continue and there is no question that the resource sector will play a significant role in Canada's future job growth and prosperity.

A few countries are not as blessed with natural resources as Canada. Natural resources have helped to shape Canada's character and identity. They have been the lifeblood of communities for generations and have helped to give Canadians a quality of life that is second to none in the world. The importance of the resource sectors to Canada's economy cannot be overstated. Natural resources are driving economic growth right across the country.

Today, Canada's natural resource sectors employ nearly 800,000 Canadians and these economic engines of prosperity account for more than 10% of Canada's gross domestic product. They generate billions of dollars worth of tax revenues and royalties that help pay for government programs and services for Canadians. With over $500 billion in potential resource projects over the next 10 years, we have a tremendous opportunity to create jobs and economic growth right across the country. These jobs will be created in virtually ever sector of our economy, from manufacturing, mining, science and technology right to the services sector.

To take advantage of this opportunity and to ensure Canada's prosperity, our government is committed to making this nation of the best places in the world to invest. We have put many key ingredients in place, ingredients such as competitive taxes, new trade agreements and non-discriminatory policies.

However, we cannot take this opportunity for granted. Canada is not the only country in the world with rich mineral and energy resources and other countries have made it clear that they are ready to act and act quickly to supply emerging markets around the world. The bottom line is that Canada is competing with other resource-rich countries for these investment dollars. That is why it is so important that Canada creates the right conditions to attract global investment.

One of the ways that we are creating a favourable climate for investment is by taking the guesswork out of the review process for major development projects, and that is the idea behind our plan for responsible resource development. In a nutshell, here is what this new legislation would achieve. First, it would make project reviews more predictable and timely. Second, it would reduce duplication of project reviews. Third, it would strengthen environmental protection. Fourth, it would enhance consultations with aboriginal peoples. We want to put in place a new system of one project-one review that operates with a clearly defined time period.

In the words of the Saskatchewan Mining Association:

The federal government heard that message, and included the 'one project, one assessment' concept. If you were putting an addition on your house and needed a building permit, you don't require both a municipal and provincial permit. It is just common sense that one review that meets common objectives is sufficient.

Our new plan would also place enforceable, beginning-to-end time limits on assessments of no longer than two years, without compromising the thoroughness of the review. The plan would eliminate duplication by allowing provincial environmental assessments to replace rather than overlay assessments by the federal government, where they meet federal requirements.

Saskatchewan Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance Ken Krawetz declared, and I quote:

If...we are doing duplicate assessments in the environmental field and...there is no need to do a duplicate assessment and one assessment will suffice we are encouraged by that.

He went on to say that an improved system could “reduce government inefficiencies” and ensure that we will have continued due diligence.

Furthermore, Bill C-38 includes new mechanisms that would make consultation with aboriginal people and communities an integral part of the new review process, with additional funding to support aboriginal participation in the process. However, let me be clear: our new plan would strengthen environmental safeguards and it would raise our already high standards.

Bill C-38 would ensure that we stop reviewing projects with little or no environmental effects, and it would focus our efforts on projects that have potential for significant environmental and economic impacts. Right now we know that too many projects are getting caught in the regulatory net. We are wasting our time reviewing projects like blueberry washing facilities, parking lots and hockey rinks, projects that have little to no adverse effect on our environment. Quite frankly, it is time to stop the tangled web of rules that are wasting everyone's time and putting major development projects at risk.

Under Bill C-38, the Minister of the Environment would retain the authority to order environmental assessments on projects deemed necessary. To further protect the environment, Bill C-38 introduces enforceable environmental assessment decision statements to ensure that proponents of resource projects comply with required mitigation measures to protect the environment.

In addition, Bill C-38 proposes to provide federal inspectors under the Canadian environmental assessment act with all the authority they need to examine whether or not companies are fulfilling the conditions specified in decision statements. It introduces penalties ranging from $100,000 to $400,000 for contraventions of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Our proposed changes would strengthen environmental safeguards and create greater certainty for investors.

In today's global economy, we simply cannot afford to have one hand tied behind our backs with a review process that is full of delays, jurisdictional overlaps and unpredictable timelines. Simply put, it is time to bring our review process into the 21st century. That is what responsible resource development is all about.

As the western premiers unanimously declared in a statement at the end of the recent conference, and I quote:

One project, one assessment, one decision increases timeliness and certainty, and reduces the bureaucratic overlap without compromising environmental rigour.

Clearly, today's act is about putting Canada's natural resources to work for all Canadians. I will always stand up for the natural resources sector and the Canadians it employs.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have here in front of me a letter that was written to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans from Mr. Stu Wells, mayor of Osoyoos and chair of the Okanagan Basin Water Board. I will not read the whole letter, but I just want some comments on a couple of lines, if I may.

I quote:

We are concerned with Bill C-38's proposed weakening of the language for fish habitat protection and other environmental laws, with the unintended consequence of weakening the protection that they offer to healthy water, whether for fish or human drinking water.

We agree that Canada's environmental legislation needs to be updated.... However....

They are concerned about the process, and they say that the current process seems needlessly rushed.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague could comment on this letter, please.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Madam Speaker, I wonder why the mayor thinks it is needlessly rushed. There has been a lot of consultation. That is how some of the regulations have come to be part of the budget.

I am just looking at what the Premier of B.C. said:

The NDP likes to talk about how they're going to fund health care and education, they're going to expand on social programs. But then on the other hand they say, “We don't like all this economic development, we don't like all this growth.” You can't have it both ways.

The point I would like to make is this. If the member actually sat down with the mayor, I would be sure he could explain that the mayor should have no worries whatsoever. This is why we are putting this in the budget: it is to make sure there is due diligence in the process, and that there is not a lot of overlap, which is something that all levels of government will appreciate. He will find that his economy and—

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I regret to interrupt the hon. minister, but many people are rising for questions and I would like to hear a few more. The hon. member for Malpeque.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I found it quite amazing how the minister can talk about cutting pretty near every environmental review there is and giving ultimate authority to cabinet to overrule anything and everything, and how that is really improving the environmental measures in the country.

My question really relates to her portfolio of regional development. She is Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification. I am wondering if she is doing the same thing with western economic diversification that the ACOA minister is doing with ACOA, and that is cutting every regional development organization out there? Those organizations do the good work, use business people on the ground, volunteers. Each of those organizations has an executive, but it is the volunteers who make the system work, who know the community.

What is the minister doing with western economic diversification in that regard? Is she cutting them, too?

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Madam Speaker, I do not have enough time to tell the member the positive things that I am doing with western economic diversification.

What I will tell him is that one of the areas we went over, when we went through our strategic review, was trying to cut the overlap on audits. Together, I asked my department to see how many audits it does per year. It amounts to about 84. I have four pages of audits. I will just go through some of them. I will not tell the member how frequent they are, the number of reports or the total.

However, these are reports: audit and evaluation, corporate administration, and they include audit reports, chief audit executive annual report, chief audit executive overview report, departmental audit committee agenda and minutes, evaluation reports, five-year evaluation plan, follow-up on outstanding audit recommendations, report on disclosure of wrongdoing, risk based audit plans, Access to Information Act annual report to Parliament, annual hazardous occurrence report, business continuity plan questionnaire.

These are reports that my department has had to fill out. These people are the ones who are serving the department. They are writing reports for capital and repair expenditures, for capital expenditure survey, for Communications Security Establishment Canada signing authority, comprehensive land claims agreements contracting obligations report, departmental performance report green procurement, infosource, management accountability framework, Privacy Act annual report to Parliament, proactive disclosure, proactive disclosure grants and contributions, proactive disclosure travel and hospitality, procurement annual report, procurement strategy for aboriginal business, purchasing activity report, report on plans and priorities—

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I must interrupt the hon. member as her time has elapsed. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Newton—North Delta.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to say it is a pleasure to rise and speak today. However, I am rising here today with a great deal of trepidation and concern, concern that my constituents are feeling as well, because I have discussed this matter with them over the last little while.

I just want to hold up Bill C-38 as a lesson aid, and being a teacher, I appreciate lesson aids. This is how thick it is. It is actually thicker than the telephone directory for the town I have spent many years in, Nanaimo, on Vancouver Island.

I want to assure the House that it is double-sided. Not only is it double-sided, but the writing is so tiny that I would need a microscope to read it. Even putting on my reading glasses, I have to struggle and hold it away from me a little.

It shows the density, in more ways than one, of the legislation that is being debated here at report stage before this House. It is not only the density and the number of pages and the number of clauses, but the fact is that this is not a budget bill. This is masquerading. That is what the government has done, masquerading this as the budget bill.

What it has really done in here is put in changes to more than 70-plus laws and regulations that go way beyond, and have very little to do with a budget document.

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I regret to interrupt the hon. member. I should have mentioned it at the beginning, but it being 5:30 p.m., the House must now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper. The hon. member will have eight minutes when this bill returns on the order paper.

[For continuation of proceedings see part B]

[Continuation of proceedings from part A]

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

Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act

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

Madam Speaker, I was saying that what we are facing here is not simply a budget bill. What we are facing here is a double-sided telephone directory of items and issues that go way beyond the budget. Not only that, but as a parliamentarian, I and many of my colleagues feel that we have been denied the opportunity to debate this so-called telephone directory of a bill, Bill C-38, in any meaningful way.

Members on all sides of the House were elected to come here. We run to be MPs because we believe in parliamentary democracy. The role of government in a parliamentary democracy is to propose, and the role of the opposition is to hold the government accountable, as it is for some of the MPs sitting on the other side, as well. There is nothing stopping them from getting up to ask questions if they need clarification.

In a parliamentary democracy, we do not have a dictatorship, we do not have a republic, we do not have the power to veto. Therefore, it behooves even majority governments to allow the parliamentary process to play out, because only then can the people of Canada have full confidence in the workings of this House.

The Conservatives are not used to having a majority. I have been hoping they would learn that they do not have to use time allocation, that they do not always have to smack the opposition on the side of the head and say that we are not going to be given time to debate. I was hoping that after they had used time allocation a few times it would have occurred to them that they do not have to do that. They have a majority. They could let the debate take place and let the Canadian public see what they are trying to do.

They say they have so much pride in what is in the bill. If they have so much pride in this thick document, they should be willing for us to have those discussions right here in this Parliament.

I heard a colleague say that we have had three months. There has not been three months of debate on this bill in this House. If there has been, it must have happened in a different reality in which only the government lives, because it certainly has not happened on this side of the House.

As a result of, I could call it arrogance or the fumes of power which have invaded certain heads, it absolutely boggles my mind that over and over the Conservatives keep using time allocation. We had a vote earlier today once again to limit the debate on this bill which is thicker than many of our communities' phone books. It is a great concern and we really have to pay attention to that.

Let us take a look at what is buried in the bill. There is a whole lot buried in the bill that will have a huge impact upon the world we leave for our children.

I hear a lot of rhetoric about protecting our environment, but when I see the kinds of attacks in this bill on environmental assessments and environmental protections, it causes me a great deal of concern.

Some will say who cares if I am concerned. I am an elected MP. A riding of constituents voted for me and sent me here in good faith.

However, I am not the only one who is raising concerns. People in the larger community are talking about environment issues.

For example, Jessica Clogg, executive director and senior counsel at West Coast Environmental Law states:

By gutting Canada’s long-standing environmental laws, the budget bill gives big oil and gas companies what they've been asking for--fewer environmental safeguards so they can push through resource megaprojects with little regard to environmental damage. It is Canadians and our children who will pay the cost.

I do not want my children, my grandchildren, my great-grandchildren or myself to have to pay the cost, nor do I want the rest of our youth to have to pay the cost.

Ten minutes goes by very quickly, especially when there is an interruption, but I will move on to another area. The changes to OAS are totally unnecessary, as all kinds have experts have said.

I will focus for a couple of minutes on the changes to immigration. Some people will wonder why changes to immigration are buried in the budget bill. The government is planning to hit the delete button for thousands of skilled workers who have been waiting very patiently to come to Canada. Out of the blue the government arbitrarily decided that anybody who applied for the skilled workers program before 2008 is gone. It will hit the delete button and their applications will no longer be valid. I know the government is saying that it will send the processing fee back to them, but the government made a commitment. These people played by the rules made by the Canadian government. Not only did they play by the rules, but they waited patiently. They did not do anything illegal to try to circumvent the system. As they were waiting patiently, they saw a new face of Canada that the Conservative government is showing to the world, that is, that Canada lacks compassion and has no respect for people who play by the rules.

The government will give them their money back, but who will give them back their hopes and aspirations? Who will give back to the family in China who, based on a promise made to them by the Canadian government because they were in a lineup to come here, sold their property. They gave their child an education so that the child would do better here. Now they cannot afford to buy back their house because the cost of living has gone up so much. I have hundreds of stories like that one.

People are demonstrating against us, against the Canadian government, in Beijing, in Manilla, in New Delhi, in Chandigarh and in Hong Kong. Why? Because we as Canadians broke our promise. What are we going to do to give these people back their hopes, aspirations and dreams? Why is the government determined to damage Canada's reputation worldwide?

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the speech of the member opposite. It was excitable and hyperbole was used. I kind of wondered, here we have 760,000 new jobs in this country and when we look at what Canadians want, they want a job. They want to be able to raise their families. They want to be able to grow and prosper in this country.

There is an economic meltdown all around the world right now and this country has been safeguarded in a very practical way. We have the budget.

How can the member opposite deny the fact that 760,000 new jobs are out there, people are working and our country is prospering? That is why the member should support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I went to Taiwan together and got to know each other really well. I have a great deal of respect for my colleague across the aisle.

What we are debating today is the budget implementation bill and the process that is being used, and what is being thrown into the budget bill that goes way beyond what should be in a normal budget implementation bill.

According to the OECD's “Best Practices for Budget Transparency”, the government's draft budgets should be submitted to Parliament no less than three months prior to the start of the fiscal year. It also noted that the budget should include a detailed commentary on each revenue and expenditure program, and that comparative information on actual revenue and expenditure during the past year and an updated forecast for the current year should be provided for each program.

None of these practices are currently followed in Canada. It is very hard for us to support a budget that is smoke and mirrors.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Newton—North Delta for her speech. She has identified a number of very important and troubling aspects of the government's actions.

I would like to go back to the absolutely incredible solution being put forward by the government. It will shorten waiting lists for immigrants by eliminating the list and refunding the processing fees. I just cannot understand why the government would do that. My colleague explained what people have to go through to immigrate to Canada. For many candidates, the process lasts several years.

I would like my colleague to tell us more about that.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are different ways people get into the country. The skilled workers class is an independent class. People have to qualify based on their education and profession, that type of criteria. The people whose files are being deleted qualified before 2008. The backlog, as it is being referred to, is not really a backlog because the minister himself gets to decide how many people from each category are going to be allowed into the country.

Over the last number of years we have seen a huge growth in the number of temporary foreign workers. Also, a lot of the skilled workers who applied before 2008 have been left out. Their hopes, dreams and aspirations have been based on the idea that they are going to come to Canada. These are the professionals we want. There was an article in the news the day before yesterday that people in Alberta are asking why the government is doing this, because these are the people that are needed.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today in support of Bill C-38 and to explain the necessary changes to the old age security program.

I appreciate as well the opportunity to stand in the House against the NDP and the opposition's tired tactics of delaying, which only serve to threaten Canadian jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

The changes proposed to the OAS program in Bill C-38 would secure the retirement benefits of future generations, making the program sustainable for the long term.

When these changes were first announced in economic action plan 2012, the Calgary Herald recognized the importance of these measures as part of our government's broader plan to protect Canada's fiscal future, saying:

It's a budget item that seems both responsible fiscally.... The firm-but-reasonable OAS strategy is in fact representative of the budget's overall tone.... Canada has shown great economic strength relative to world powers in Europe and the Americas since the fall of 2008, and continued leadership on that front is important.

The numbers tell us that we have to confront our fiscal and demographic realities to serve the best interests of all Canadians, both now and into the future.

The recent census confirmed that Canada has more seniors than ever before. My riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound has one of the larger concentrations of seniors, and it is going to continue to grow as a retirement area.

The population of Canadian seniors is expected to keep growing in the coming years. By 2030, less than 20 years from now, almost one in four Canadians will be 65 years of age or older, compared to one in seven today. The number of OAS recipients is expected to almost double over the next 20 years, from about 4.9 million in 2011 to 9.3 million by 2030, when the last of the baby boomers reaches 65.

The annual cost of the old age security program is projected to increase from approximately $38 billion in 2011 to over $108 billion in 2030. OAS is the largest single social program of the Government of Canada, and it is 100% funded by tax revenues. Today 13¢ of every federal tax dollar is spent on old age security. If no changes are made, in about 20 years that will grow to 21¢, or one-fifth of all federal tax dollars spent.

At the same time, Canadians are living longer and healthier lives. With the growing number of seniors who will be collecting OAS for longer periods of time, the total cost of benefits will become increasingly difficult to afford for tomorrow's workers and taxpayers.

We cannot stand idly by. We will not stand idly by. We cannot allow the old age security program to continue on its current path. That is why we are taking action: because we want to ensure that future generations have an OAS program they can count on in their older years.

Before I talk about the proposed changes, it is important to clarify that those seniors who currently receive OAS will not lose a cent and will not be affected.

The most important change we are proposing is to increase the eligibility age for the OAS pension and GIS from 65 to 67 by 2029, with a gradual increase starting on April 1, 2023. In essence, it will be phased in over six years.

We are giving advance notification and a long phase-in period to allow Canadians ample time to adapt their retirement income plans and to smooth the transition to the new age of eligibility. We think our phased-in approach is both fair and reasonable.

Two other changes to the OAS are being proposed: proactive enrolment and voluntary deferral.

Starting in 2013, we plan to begin proactive enrolment of OAS benefits to eliminate the need for some eligible seniors to apply for their OAS pension and the GIS. This measure will be implemented over a four-year period and will reduce the application burden on many seniors as well as the government's administrative costs.

On July 1, 2013, we also plan to allow for a voluntary deferral of the OAS pension. This would let people delay receiving their OAS pension by up to five years, up to age 70, in exchange for an enhanced monthly pension, similar to what is happening in CPP.

This new measure will provide people with more flexibility as they plan their transition from work to retirement. Not only will it increase flexibility for older workers, but the option to defer has also been welcomed by small business owners across the country.

Ben Brunnen, chief economist with the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, has been clear that this represents a win for Canadian business by saying:

The OAS changes help remove disincentives and create choice for older workers to stay in the workforce, which can have a big impact on the labour market—especially for a smaller company.

Let me return to the age of eligibility and be absolutely clear about the timeline: current OAS pensioners will not be affected by this change, nor will people who are close to the current OAS age of eligibility. People aged 54 or older as of March 31, 2012—in other words, those born on or before March 31, 1958—would be eligible to apply for the OAS pension and the GIS at the age of 65.

We will ensure that certain federal income support programs that end at age 65 are aligned with changes to the OAS program. This would include programs for veterans and low-income first nation seniors on reserve. This will ensure that individuals receiving benefits from these programs would not face a gap in income at ages 65 and 66.

We will also consider the situation of people between 65 and 67 who receive disability or survivor benefits from the Canada pension plan. These benefits typically stop or are reduced at age 65, when the recipient becomes eligible for old age security. This will be discussed with the ministers of finance of the provinces and territories, who are joint stewards of the CPP, during the next regular review of the program.

Our government has been clear that the proposed changes would not affect the Canada pension plan, as the CPP and OAS are two separate programs. The Chief Actuary has confirmed that CPP is financially sound and fully sustainable for generations to come.

The OAS program cannot continue in its present form. Once again, as we have said, it is becoming unaffordable and needs to reflect demographic realities, and that is why we are changing it now. If we refuse to acknowledge these realities and simply sit back and do nothing, the OAS program would become unsustainable, as it would if the opposition parties had their way.

Conservatives are convinced that the only just and practical way to relieve the cost pressures on OAS is to increase the age of eligibility. As the Government of Canada, it is our obligation to make responsible and prudent decisions for Canadians of all ages over the coming decades. Not only is it our obligation to make responsible and prudent decisions, some of them tough decisions, but we are up to the task. Through our actions, that is exactly what we are doing.

Back when OAS was first put in place, the average age of a male was 67 to 68 years old and the average age of a female was 69 to 71 years old, depending upon which figures one looked at. However, today those ages are 80 and 83. We are living longer, and that is a good thing, but programs like this need to be looked at and changed from time to time.

Many countries in the world have already made these changes or are looking at making these changes. I think it is high time that Canada did the same thing. This policy would put us in good shape for seniors down the road. My sons, when it is their time, will have a healthy OAS there for them.

However, if we do not deal with it, I fear they will be looking at something that is reduced or gone altogether.

I will leave it at that. I look forward to any questions.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the good news, I hope, is that in 2023 the Conservatives will not be in government. They probably will not be there in 2015. That is the good news.

With regard to the old age pension, people working in big plants where they have good pension plans can decide to retire at the age of 60 or maybe 55. However, the problem is that the people who would be affected have low wages, are not in a union and have no pension plan.

I just do not see how, for example, people in a fish plant can work until the age of 67. People down home call my office and tell me that they have a hard time working until 60 in the fish plant with the hard work that they have to do. How are they going to be able to stay until the age of 67?

My question to the member is this: who will pay that cost? Would it be the provinces? Would we put people on welfare instead?

Also, with reference to other countries, France is reducing the age from 65 to 60. They are reducing it, not putting it up. I would like to hear what the member has to say on this point.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to my hon. colleague's first comment, which I will not get back into, my mom used to say when I was a kid that every little boy should have a dream.

However, in terms of the question about who is going to pay for this, the member talked about the age of 67. It is always the NDP way to fearmonger and present 67 as that terrible age. My father is 79 years old, and he can still outwork a lot of men 20 years younger. On this issue that we cannot work at 67, it is a reality and a fact out there today that there are members in this House who work 15 hours a day and are older than 67. It does not matter what profession people are in; to use that as an argument does not cut it with me.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound's remarks. I did not hear anything about the United Nations in there. I figured he might be talking about the United Nations and whether there is money allocated there. He is on that wavelength a bit.

However, the member's arguments on the OAS sound good. The problem is they have no substance in fact at all. The OAS is sustainable as is, according to nearly every economist. If people want to work to age 69, 70 and 75, they can do so, but what about those who cannot work beyond 65? This bill really means that those people who are poor and in the lower income bracket would have to go on provincial welfare. As it comes into place, this is a plan to transfer costs to the provinces and cover up for the bad fiscal management of the Conservative government.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member for Malpeque's support of my comments on the UN, so I thank him for that.

To get back to OAS, it is obvious that the NDP members do not have a monopoly on fearmongering. We just heard a classic example there. However, we are fixing this OAS so that when he leaves this place in three years, he will be able to draw on it too.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague for having content in his speech, because we have heard the opposition members talk a lot about how thick and big this bill is, and I ask my colleague to comment on this. Why is it that if there is not enough time for debate, the opposition members are taking a huge percentage of their total time talking about how big this bill is instead of talking about content?

Also, I believe it was the member for Burnaby—New Westminster who spoke for enough time to allow 50 of his party's members to speak to the bill. Then the members complain that there is not enough debate time, in spite of the fact that we have had the most debate time ever on a budget implementation bill. I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my good friend and colleague from Wainwright. I would never call anybody a hypocrite in this place, but certainly some actions are hypocritical, and the member touched on that.

In government we hear comments like the one from the member for Malpeque, who talked about fiscal management. It is known around the world in international circuits that the state of finances in Canada stands second to no one. We are leaders in that, and here is another example in which we fix something for the long-term good of Canada and Canadians.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will take us from the United Nations and old age security to the environment.

Allow me to delve into Canadian history and go back to the dawn of the great nation of Canada, to 1867, the year of Confederation. At that time, the Fathers of Confederation decided on the division of powers and the jurisdictions of the federal and provincial governments.

At the time, there were two major industries in Canada: fur trading and fishing. The fishery was of vital importance and played a predominant role in the Canadian economy. Of course, it is still a very important industry, especially in the maritime provinces and on the west coast. However, it has a lesser role in the Canadian economy than it did back then.

At that time, it was decided, with respect to the division of power, that the fishery would be a federal jurisdiction.

Today, this power is very important when it comes to environmental protection because it gives the federal government a large say not only with respect to the health of fish stocks and the fishery, but also the quality and quantity of freshwater in Canada.

It is true that water is a natural resource and therefore a provincial jurisdiction. However, in some places it falls under joint jurisdiction, especially in the Great Lakes and the boundary waters that are subject to an international treaty. The federal government has a say in how those waters are managed. Apart from that, in Canada, water is a natural resource that falls under provincial jurisdiction. However, under the Fisheries Act, the federal government has a say in order to protect the quality and quantity of freshwater in this country.

In 1868, one year after Confederation, the government passed the Fisheries Act. In 1977, more than 100 years later, in light of the data we had gathered since Confederation and advances in science, we came to understand the importance of fish habitat to the health of the fish, but also as a sign of water quality. Damaged habitat has an impact on the health of the fish—the fish might be deformed, for example—but it is also a sign that the quality of the water leaves something to be desired.

It is not just pollution that can harm or damage fish habitat. Lower water flow can damage or destroy fish habitat. With the changing climate, we see that the flow of some of our country's great rivers is decreasing. I am thinking about the Athabasca River in particular. That is a threat to fish habitat. The flow of the Athabasca River is decreasing because of climate change, but also because of water removal by the agricultural sector and the oil sands industry.

If we want to protect fish habitat, perhaps we need to establish a critical flow threshold for the river below which water removal must be stopped temporarily.

If fish habitat in the Athabasca River is not protected by the Fisheries Act, it will not be illegal to remove too much water, and the water level will drop and fish habitat will be damaged. The government is removing fish habitat protection, which opens the door to all kinds of water removal.

For instance, let us suppose that, in the summertime, a municipality experiences a water shortage but, for political reasons, decides not to prohibit people from watering their lawns in the middle of the afternoon, which is what many municipalities usually do in the summer. Suddenly the water level in the watershed in which the municipality is located drops, and this damages fish habitat.

Fish habitat is very important, because many fish that travel from one end of a river to another rest and feed there. Damaging fish habitat is harmful to fish and to the river, and can even harm the ocean.

If this habitat is not protected by the Fisheries Act, this opens the door to all kinds of potential abuses of our freshwater resource.

This bill means major changes that will affect the future of our freshwater resource and the health of our environment and our aquatic ecosystems. This poses a real problem.

I would also point out that the government is using a false argument to justify its changes to the Fisheries Act to weaken fish habitat protections.

It is like with the gun control bill. The government likes to invoke farmers and hunters to make everyone feel that its objectives are noble. It is doing the same thing in trying to justify its weakening of the Fisheries Act with regard to habitat protection. It invokes farmers. The government says that it needs to do this to make life easier and to protect farmers and farming. The government knows that is a powerful argument.

I will read an article that appeared in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix on June 8, by a farmer, Mr. Jan Slomp, who owns a 65-cow dairy farm. It reads:

[The] Agriculture Minister...and [the] Fisheries Minister...seem to be using farmers as bait to get the public to swallow the changes to the Fisheries Act included in Bill C-38, the omnibus Budget Implementation Act.

By suggesting that the government is abandoning protection of fish habitat so that farmers don't have to deal with red tape when they maintain their irrigation ditches, the ministers have stretched credibility to the breaking point. Like me, many farmers resent the implication that we aren't interested in being good stewards of the water, which is essential for healthy livestock and wholesome crops, on the land we manage.

Here we have a farmer who is calling into question the government's public relations strategy of invoking farmers to justify changing the Fisheries Act and weaken protections for Canada's environment, water and aquatic ecosystems in particular.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I should remind my friend that this is the Fisheries Act, not the water act. What we are doing with the Fisheries Act is making it a true Fisheries Act by making the habitat provisions apply to fisheries of human interest, commercial, recreational and aboriginal fisheries, so it is a true fisheries population habitat protection bill.

In terms of agriculture, the budget committee hearing that I was at, Mr. Ron Bonnett, who is the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture--not just one producer, but a producer who represents most Canadian farmers--was very much in favour of what we are doing with the Fisheries Act. Could my hon. friend explain the difference?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the hon. member's comments and his expertise. I know he has much expertise in the area of biology and, therefore, his comments carry a lot of weight. However, the Fisheries Act is meant to protect fish and fish habitat, but the reality is that the fish are the canary in the coal mine. If the fish are not healthy and the fish habitat is damaged, it is a sign that all is not well in the ecosystem in the watershed and, ultimately, the watershed benefits human life. Therefore, it is a very important lever in terms of protecting our water.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that my colleague mentioned the Slomp family, who I know personally. This is a farm family that runs an organic dairy farm and are proud protectors of the environment, and I can speak to that personally.

The member has raised a very important point. I would like him to respond to a very famous case in Alberta, the Friends of the Oldman River Society case, where Supreme Court Justice La Forest held that the federal government shares responsibility for the protection of the environment. Part of that decision was based on the fact that the federal government has unilateral responsibility for the protection of the fisheries under the Constitution.

Does the member think that the government is using an underhanded method of amending the Constitution by altering the federal Fisheries Act so that it has less power to protect fisheries?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to agree that the government is being surreptitious on this. It is using an omnibus bill to essentially undermine environmental regulations in the country. Any change to the Fisheries Act should be studied in-depth by the fisheries committee and calling on expert witnesses to speak to that.

I do believe that the budget is being used to undermine water policy in the country, not only by amending the Fisheries Act but by casting aside the world renowned Experimental Lakes Area program.

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

Mr. Speaker, I guess the biggest problem is the fact that the government has lumped so much into the bill. It has made some good changes. With EI, the best 14 weeks is a good change, as is working while on a claim. They were Liberal pilot projects that the government has adopted and they were good changes. However, when it went past that, rather than having a fulsome debate on the whole issue, it brought through the injurious provisions that are really going to be like pulling a fire alarm in rural Canada when people start leaving rural Canada because of the approach the government has taken.

It is similar to water and DFO. Would it not have been better to proceed in a majority situation, like the government finds itself in? It ran on the promise to bring forward a new Fisheries Act in 2008 and in the last campaign. It had not done it and it is sneaking it into this budget. I would like my colleague's comments on that.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a scientific issue. A lot of people think that environmental activism is all about public relations stunts and so forth and that it is a kind of soft area. However, it is not. It is one of the most scientifically involved areas of public policy.

There are some very good minds on the finance committee who know a lot about the financial ecosystems and the economic ecosystems, but I do not know if the finance committee has the expertise needed to explore the complexities of aquatic ecosystems.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I want to point out to hon. members that we have several hours this evening on this bill. A number of members have been getting up on questions and comments. I know it would be appreciated by hon. members if members kept their questions and responses succinct. Then more members will have the opportunity to question other hon. members in the House.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, what a time to be addressing Canada's economic action plan. As we look around the world, the cradles of civilization in Europe are now overwhelmed with devastating public debt crises. South of the border, millions of people are chronically unemployed and the U.S. government has more debt than the entire U.S. economy has output.

Here in Canada we are strong. We are strong because our Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance have enacted responsible, low-tax, low-debt, low-spending economic policies that respect taxpayers and preserve the long-term sustainability of the government.

I started with Europe because the crisis is probably most acute there. Countries across that continent are faced with the prospect of debt defaults. Greece has a debt to GDP ratio of 165%. That means that for every dollar in output in the Greek economy, there is $1.65 in government debt. In Italy it is $1.20. In Portugal and Ireland, it is about $1.08.

Any government that has more debt than its economy has output is truly in a debt crisis situation. We know that the solution for a debt crisis is not more debt.

Right now the European Union and the IMF are working to try to deal with this crisis. The IMF has accumulated about $400 billion U.S. in its account to deal with crises like this one. It is seeking another $420 billion U.S. next week at the G20 meeting in Mexico. The European Union for its part has already committed $200 billion to Portugal, Ireland and Greece. It has set up another firewall fund worth half a trillion dollars.

At least nine euro currency countries have been downgraded. Greek and Portuguese debt is now considered by all rating agencies to be junk status. The NDP and the Liberals have both suggested that Canada should use tax dollars from this country to bail out governments in that continent. Before we start shovelling Canadian tax dollars into a foreign debt crisis, let us consider the situation in its entirety.

For these countries to require a Canadian assisted bailout, they would have had to have taxed every available dollar out of their own economy, borrowed every single dollar that anyone in the world would lend to them, and used every single dollar in the existing IMF and EU bailout contingency funds.

I would suggest that any country that exhausts all of those sources of funds in order to pay for its spending and its debt obligations is probably not the safest entity to which one would want to lend money.

This government is interested in protecting Canadian tax dollars. As such, we will not lend them to a foreign debt crisis before the countries whose policies created said crisis have a plan to deal with it.

Across the way they feel very differently. We talked about Canada Europe free trade. When we say that, they think it is something very different. They mean exporting Canadian tax dollars to euro debtor nations and importing failed European welfare state ideas to Canada. That is the kind of trade they propose.

The NDP and the Liberals both propose policies that are nearly identical to the ones that put Greece, Portugal and the other nations into trouble. For one, they propose allowing anyone who has been in the country for as little as three years to collect old age security. They have proposed a 45-day work year. That would allow people to pay into EI for 45 days and then collect employment insurance for the rest of the year. This would be an enormous cost to working families and small businesses. Now they are proposing to take Canadian tax dollars and spend them on euro debt bailouts before those countries have even written a plan to deal with their own crisis.

On this side of the House we understand that the best thing we can do to protect Canada from the debt crisis is to ensure that we do not repeat the mistakes that led to it in the first place.

That is why we have a firm plan to balance the budget by 2015-16, just three years from now. That will make us the first country in the entire G8 to balance its budget without a tax increase. What better way to protect ourselves against a debt crisis than to pay off debt?

How would we do this? To start with, we have initiated a plan to reduce the cost of government by $5.2 billion over the next three years. We have announced savings in department after department and we have been able to secure these savings without affecting front line services for the Canadian people.

Second, we are making our social programs sustainable. If old age security is not affordable to taxpayers, then it is not sustainable to seniors. That is why we are making it affordable and sustainable all at once. The demographic and cost pressures are evident. Over the next 20 years the number of people collecting OAS will double. The cost of OAS will triple. The number of taxpayers for each retired OAS recipient will fall by half. This is partly due to the demographic baby boom bubble. It is also due to the fact that we are living longer.

The average life expectancy grows by 47 days every single year. When old age security was created over half a century ago, life expectancy was 69 years and eligibility was 70, meaning that most people did not get any OAS at all. Now the age eligibility is 65 and life expectancy is 82, meaning there is now 17 years of eligibility. Twenty years from now it will be roughly 84, meaning people would collect OAS for almost two decades. That is not what the program was intended to do. Over a gradual period we would raise the age of eligibility by two years in a way that would not affect existing or soon-to-be recipients of OAS.

At the same time, as we render these programs more sustainable, we are growing the private sector by allowing tax-free savings accounts. Already, 6.2 million Canadians have opened accounts. That means for decades to come they will grow their savings without the hand of government interfering with their returns.

We are allowing small businesses to pool their resources to create employer pension plans for their employees to help the majority of Canadians who do not have an employer pension plan now.

We are removing regulatory obstacles so that there is one approval for every one project so that we can unlock the half a trillion dollars in resource wealth that sits beneath our feet across this country.

We are signing free trade agreements with countries all around the world. Europe and India are the next two agreements on our to-do list.

The goal here is to contain the cost of government and grow the success of the wealth-generating private sector so that we can have jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

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

Mr. Speaker, just a few months ago, the member treated us to a lovely speech about the magic of the free market. Unfortunately, the magic my colleague was talking about does not seem to have done anything for the Cinderellas and Snow Whites in his fairy tale.

He talked briefly about changes to the age of eligibility for old age security. I would like him to tell us if he supports that decision wholeheartedly even though he can likely foresee the consequences.

Surely our colleague can answer a few questions. For example, how will this affect seniors who cannot work any longer, seniors who have been laid off and cannot find another job to fill the gap until they turn 67?

How will these changes affect them?

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

Mr. Speaker, she talks about fairy tales. Her party would bring the nightmare that we are witnessing every day on the news. All we have to do to see the NDP's vision for economic policy is turn on the Greek news to find out what happens when we expand government into every aspect of people's lives.

We have to look at what has happened right across Europe, with the European countries that have endorsed and implemented the exact policies that the NDP is proposing to implement here in Canada. We reject those policies. That is why, under the best finance minister in the world, we have succeeded.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on that same point, around old age security, it is a good news story. People are living longer. That is good news. People are enjoying life more. With our good quality health care, they are able to enjoy being fit and with vigour.

I want to ask my colleague a question regarding some of the other initiatives we have taken that he did not get a chance to mention because his time was limited. We have raised the personal exemption several times, so seniors benefit from that. We have raised the age exemption several times, so seniors benefit from that. We have introduced pension splitting for seniors, so they benefit from that. We have enriched the GIS, so seniors benefit from that.

Does he feel, in balance with the OAS initiatives that we are taking, that seniors are better off now after six years of Conservative government?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have implemented the tax-free savings accounts. We have implemented pension splitting for seniors. We have targeted an increase in benefits to the poorest and most in need seniors across this country. Clearly, we have an agenda of delivering for Canada's seniors.

However, what the opposition fails to realize is that all of the pension funds that it claims it wants to protect are deeply invested in the stock market. All of them. In the Canada Post pension plan, for example, all five of its top holdings are banks and oil companies. The only two oil companies, by the way, are both oil sands companies that the opposition leader says is a disease.

The NDP wants to increase taxes on the businesses that are in the pension plans of our seniors. A tax on those businesses would be a tax on pensions and a tax on seniors.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I are going to have to disagree on just how beneficial the changes to the OAS would be. Some of the changes they have made, as some of the government members have indicated, have benefited some Canadians.

With regard to income splitting, the key part is that people have to have an income before they can split it.

With regard to the OAS, it would be those low-income families and people with disabilities who are going to hurt most. Having spoken with people with disabilities, they look forward to reaching the age of 65 so that they can get OAS and the guaranteed income supplement. They are richer than they ever have been before, and that is a fact.

The question for my colleague is, why did the government not carve out a special provision for persons with disabilities, on the OAS? Why did it not do that, at least?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have done more to protect and advance the interests of disabled persons than any government in Canadian history. The Minister of Finance, under his leadership in a previous budget, implemented the registered disability savings plan. This plan allows families to put aside the resources to ensure that after the parents are gone, the dependent disabled person has a future and has hope.

We want to empower families to take care of themselves and neighbours and friends and community to take care of each other. That is the Conservative way. That is the Canadian way.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the late Jack Layton was very public in his commitment that the New Democrat official opposition would continue to seek constructive dialogue with the government on the development and reform of federal law and policy. We have been steadfast in our dedication to that commitment. We have persisted in seeking more robust dialogues with Canadians and opportunities for debate among the duly elected members of Parliament.

Sadly, the Conservative government has reneged on its own promises of a more open, transparent and participatory government. Bill C-38 and the process for its passage in one budget bill amending 70 laws is clear evidence of the opposite direction and reneging of those undertakings.

My final remarks today on Bill C-38 will be delivered with great despair, great despair for the expedited undemocratic process for enacting Bill C-38 and changes to 70 laws, despair for the deliberate undermining of more than four decades of collaborative efforts of previous governments to work with ecologists, limnologists, first nations, environmental organizations, fisheries officers, environmental inspectors, justice officials and prosecutors to develop and implement strong federal laws for the protection of the environment, despair that Canada's environmental laws are being shredded at the admission of the Minister of Natural Resources because one Chinese official purportedly queried why Canada's pipeline review process was taking so long and several farmers apparently complaining to the Minister of Fisheries about measures to protect fisheries.

I despair that Canadians were once lauded at international forums for our progressive environmental laws and democratic processes to engage Canadians in their making and application. Bill C-38 has been roundly criticized by highly respected and experienced Canadians, with decades of experience in environmental law, science and governance, including four former fisheries ministers, two former Progressive Conservative ministers, one of whom was a former Speaker.

Canada's foremost scientists have decried the actions of the government to undermine the federal Fisheries Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, absent any reasonable consultations on credible ways to expedite and coordinate project approvals, while still preventing environmental damage through effective application of these laws.

Bill C-38 is wrong in substance and in its process. I will speak first to the process.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act was forged through a series of open, transparent and inclusive consultation processes starting several years before the law was even enacted, a process I was privileged to contribute to over many decades. Provisions of the bill were openly discussed and debated in advance of its enactment, in fact, in advance of it ever being tabled in this place. Parallel discussions were held with a broad array of persons on the regulations that would be promulgated under this yet to be enacted law, a very wise and constructive way of coming forward with legislation. A discussion was held with the public about the umbrella act and consultations were also held directly with scientists, engineers, industry, biologists, limnologists on how the law was to be implemented.

A regulatory advisory committee known as the RAC was established including representatives from industry, environmental groups, farmers and both levels of government. This constructive rule-making process ensured that the laws were practicable and legally and scientifically sound.

Now we have the Conservative government's non-process on bringing forward substantial changes to laws that have withstood time.

The regulatory advisory committee has not met once since the government seized the reins of power. The so-called responsible resource development act was tabled with zero advance consultation. Is this a responsible process? There has been no parallel process to discuss the regulations that will be needed to give substance to this proposed law.

We and regulated industry are left with great legal uncertainty. Members of Parliament are being required to vote on substantial legal reforms to long-standing laws in a complete vacuum. A predictable result will be a highly contested and widely litigated process, which we heard today in a press conference of leading environmental lawyers across the country.

What happened to the open, transparent, participatory government that the Conservatives promised? That promise has been shredded along with a once robust federal environmental regulatory regime. The government has violated its commitments under article 3 of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, and that requirement is to provide advance notice and opportunity for anyone in Canada to comment on any proposed environmental law or policy.

Let us recall the origin of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. In the 1980s and the early 1990s, because of the failure of the federal government to enforce its duties to access impacts of major projects, a number of cases were brought before the courts. Most noteworthy was the celebrated 1992 decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Friends of the Oldman River Society case. The court ruled that the powers and therefore responsibilities of the federal government to protect the environment were shared with the provinces, that there was no conflict between the federal and provincial governments and that they both had responsibilities under the Constitution. In coming forward with that finding, the Supreme Court justice cited a once roundly referred to report of the National Task Force on Environment and Economy, a report that I would highly recommend government members read.

Way back then governments were actually bringing together industry and environmentalists in recognizing that we had to have environment and economy together.

One concrete result was the enactment in the 1990s of the fulsome federal environmental assessment regime. The key rationale for the enactment of that law was to provide greater legal certainty through an open, transparent, scientifically-founded, credible project review process. The new regime, which will be brought into effect should Bill C-38 become law, erases that certainty and replaces it with a system rife with political influence and discretion. Federal reviews can be replaced by provincial processes without proof of equivalency or the need to even ensure cumulative impact assessment, the very opposite of a sound, sustainable, credible energy resource regulatory regime which the government keeps promising.

The proposed new environmental assessment regime will substantially reduce the rights of concerned communities to participate in major project review processes. It will also severely limit the potential for reviews at all and on terms which will be politically driven.

The federal Fisheries Act would also be substantially amended through Bill C-38, absent any credible consultation. These reforms to the Fisheries Act would erase the most powerful environmental protection law, the key measure which has triggered the majority of previous major environmental assessments and as a result stronger environmental reviews. The effect, as I have mentioned, would be the diminishment of the unilateral constitutional federal power to protect Canada's fisheries. As was the case with CEAA, where there were consultations over many decades, previous governments had intense consultations.

However, it is not just federal laws that are being undermined. The measures in the bill and the budget would undermine the very foundations of good science that should be the basis of our laws.

In implementing this law, the government is violating its trade agreement with the United States of America and Mexico. The Conservatives committed under NAFTA that they would strengthen the development and enforcement of environmental laws and regulations and strive to continually improve them.

Under the NAFTA investment chapter, it specifies it is inappropriate to encourage investment by relaxing domestic health, safety or environmental measures. That is exactly what the Conservative government intends to do through Bill C-38, and we can anticipate that the citizens of Canada may incur the cost of actions brought under NAFTA.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech and I have listened to NDP members present themselves as a potential Canadian government. I have also listened to those members advocate their policies.

One of our government's priorities is to keep Canadians healthy so they can avoid disease. That member's leader has actually said that jobs in the resource sector are diseases. Is there some type of connection with NDP policies? We work on research, development and inoculation in an attempt to prevent diseases. That member's boss thinks jobs are diseases and NDP policies seem to try to prevent jobs. We have high taxes. We have major regulation.

Does the member agree with her leader that jobs are diseases and they should be avoided like the common cold?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will give a far more respectful and informed response than the hon. member across the way delivered in the form of a question to me.

At no time, Mr. Speaker, as you are well aware, and any member of the House who has taken the time to actually sit down and read some of the reports that talk about how the Dutch disease may be impacting Canadian industry would know that in fact what he has said is a complete falsehood and certainly a falsehood to what the hon. leader of the official opposition has said.

The member raised the issue of health. One of the main reasons why we need to have protections of our fishery and why we need to have thorough environmental impact assessments is so we can identify early on the prevention of impacts that contaminate our fishery, which many first nation communities still rely on and is their constitutional right, and it is very necessary to identify in advance any impacts of major projects that might harm human health.

I would encourage the member to give more attention in that regard.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague, which I think would be helpful in our overall discussion about the process that has gone on here.

I think it is fair to say that the consensus in the House is, even among some backbenchers in the government, that the bill should have been divided into pieces and that there should have been proper consideration given to the regulatory changes.

For example, we know, in the wake of this week's oil spill in Alberta, that the Government of Canada's regulatory standards right now for pipelines do not distinguish between diluted bitumen and conventional oil. We know that diluted bitumen is more problematic to ship, more toxic, more corrosive, more abrasive and is more likely to lead to more pipeline ruptures.

Could she address how that kind of issue specifically would have benefited from a proper multi-stakeholder process, either through Canada's National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, which was just killed, or perhaps even at a special legislative committee?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is very complex and I will try to give a succinct a response.

The example that the hon. member has raised, though, is a really important one to give us a context for looking at Bill C-38. One of the strongest reasons for maintaining a strong federal Fisheries Act and a strong Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is to ensure that we have full reviews of major projects that may actually impact the environment or human health.

Given the recent incidents that have occurred in this week period, we have had two breaks in pipelines in my province of Alberta, not detected by the pipeline owner or operator, not detected by either federal or provincial officers, but detected by first nations people or by farmers.

We should have a proper review of this critical federal legislation, if we plan to change it, and we should revert to the very thorough robust processes that were in place before the government took the reins of power.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to highlight some key measures in Bill C-38, our government's plan to keep this country on a course toward long-term growth and prosperity. Bill C-38 would unleash the potential of Canadian business and entrepreneurs to innovate and thrive in the modern economy.

However, unlike members opposite, our Conservative government recognizes that Canada's resource sector is an asset that will bring greater prosperity to all Canadians and not a point of division.

In fact, I represent a rural natural resource constituency and I am very proud to do so. I have farmers, ranchers, loggers, tourist operators and a burgeoning energy industry in my constituency. My constituency also happens to be the number one producer of canola in the country, which is something else I am very proud of. The people in my constituency and in my communities live with natural resources harvesting and natural resources conservation every day.

I would make the point that, in terms of the Fisheries Act, the amendments we are making are strongly supported by rural municipalities in my constituency and right across the country. Many of my municipalities have very small budgets. They are not very wealthy. The draconian enforcement of the old, ineffective Fisheries Act put an incredible strain on local ratepayers, with zero environmental gain. Therefore, the changes that we are making to the Fisheries Act are welcomed by rural communities across the country.

It is for that reason that I am so disappointed that the opposition has chosen to proceed with these costly delay tactics.

Major resource development projects create jobs and spur development across the country. In 2011 alone, the natural resources sector employed an incredible 790,000 workers in communities right across the country. It is predicted that in the next 10 years more than 500 major projects, representing $500 billion in new investments, are planned across the country. An increasing global demand, especially from emerging markets, bodes very well for Canada. We will reap even greater benefits from our natural resources by encouraging greater private sector investment.

However, currently, Canadian businesses in the natural resources sector that wish to undertake major economic development projects must navigate a complex and unwieldy maze of regulatory requirements and processes. The poster child for bad environmental process is the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, a project I have some familiarity with having done some of the early environmental work up there myself back in the 1970s. It was proven decades ago that the Mackenzie Valley pipeline could have been built in a very environmentally sound way.

The process was repeated in the 1990s, completely unnecessarily. Eventually, the project was shelved due to low natural gas prices.

The 34 years of environmental processes resulted in no project and dozens of aboriginal communities in the Mackenzie Valley impoverished for the foreseeable future because, with the low natural gas prices these days, I think there is a big question mark over the building of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline.

These approval processes are long and unpredictable and actually contribute very little to environmental improvement. Delays and red tape often plague projects that pose few environmental risks. Thousands of small projects have been caught up in this unwieldy process.

Testifying before the House subcommittee, which engaged in an in-depth study of this legislation, Dave Collyer, president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, told MPs:

The current regulatory process has often led to project delays and cost escalation, which both defer and reduce the employment and revenue benefits accruing to Canadians from these investments. In some cases, projects have unfortunately been cancelled or deferred for many years without any discernible improvement in environmental performance or outcomes.

The Mackenzie Valley pipeline is a perfect example of what Mr. Collyer was talking about.

By forcing these thousands of low-risk projects to go through the review process, the existing system draws resources away from projects that are very large. This approach is not economically sound or environmentally beneficial.

One of the mistakes my friends opposite make is that they think an environmental process is the same as an environmental outcome. This government is focused on environmental outcomes. On our watch, since 2006, most of Canada's environmental indicators have improved. I would recommend that members opposite actually look at what is going on in the environment before they go on and on at length about environmental processes.

Right now, in the federal government alone, accountability for assessments rests with dozens of departments and agencies, leading to duplication and needlessly wastes resources. The starting point in federal environmental assessments can also be unpredictable, which cause lengthy delays. This leads to delays in investment and job creation and some plans are even abandoned because of this lengthy environmental process.

It is no wonder that the members for Edmonton—Strathcona and Newton—North Delta both cited environmental lawyers. Environmental lawyers get rich under this process and so it is understandable that environmental lawyers would be very upset by what we are doing to make the environmental process more efficient. One less day of an environmental process means one less day of fees for environmental lawyers.

This is why our Conservative government has worked hard since 2006 to streamline and improve the regulatory process. However, much more needs to be done. A modern regulatory system should support progress on economically viable, major economic projects and sustain Canada's reputation as an attractive place to invest while contributing to better environmental outcomes. There is that word “outcomes”, meaning results. That is what this government is focused on.

Today's bill would help modernize the federal regulatory system by establishing clear timelines, reducing duplication and regulatory burdens and focusing resources on large projects. The bill includes a number of initiatives to meet this objective. Our legislation would implement system-wide improvements to achieve the goal of one project, one review in clearly defined time periods. It is not that well known, but a number of years ago, under a Liberal government, the Yukon imposed timelines on environmental assessment reviews, and it is working very well.

In addition, we will invest $54 million over two years to support more effective project approvals through the major projects management office initiative. This initiative has helped to transform the approvals process for major natural resource projects by shortening average review timelines from four years to just 22 months, with no change in environmental outcomes. Environmental outcomes still continue to improve because that is what happens in western free market democracies. Environmental outcomes always continue to improve as we expend the resources that we have earned through our economic development on better and better environmental technology.

It is through measures like these and our government's efficient, responsible approach that we are supporting responsible resource development, creating jobs while protecting the environment. A significant element of this economic boost is represented by Canada's unique oil sands industry which employs over 130,000 people while generating wealth that benefits all of our citizens.

I had the honour in the winter of 2009-10 to do environmental work myself in the oil sands. What I saw there made me very proud to be a citizen of this country. I saw not only responsible resource development in action, but the incredible skill level of oil sands workers from all across the country who were contributing to this wealth creation juggernaut that benefits everybody.

Over the next 25 years, the Canadian Energy Research Institute estimates that oil sands growth will support, on average, 480,000 jobs per year in Canada and add an incredible $2.3 trillion to our GDP. At the same time, a strong Alberta economy generates significant benefits for Canada as a whole.

As members of the House can see, our government remains committed to making Canada a great place to create and expand businesses and develop our incredible natural resource endowment, from tax relief to the responsible regulatory program we are putting in, to things like the flow-through shares as part of the mineral exploration tax credit. I could go on and on.

In my allotted time today, I have only had an opportunity to touch on a few of the very important measures in the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act. Given that, I would strongly encourage all members of the House to actually read the legislation and give it the support it deserves.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of serving with my colleague on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

The member must know that when he cited the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, it was actually a proponent who stopped the clock and made the process longer. When the member cites that example, maybe he should explain the reasons for why that process took as long as it did. It was not because of the consultations.

The member also talked about resource development. We know that in this budget the government has cut the Experimental Lakes Area, has cut research tools and instruments and has cut major resources support programs. We know that these decisions are being taken without adequate sufficient scientific expertise.

Why does the member opposite think that these decisions should be political decisions and not decisions to be taken by scientists after having been well-informed and after having collected sufficient scientific data?

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the decision to suspend the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, I should remind my hon. friend that companies are always looking at the economic environment that they are working in. Time is money. When delays occur, the market will change. If that pipeline had been built back in the late 1970s, it would have been able to withstand low natural gas prices and continue to provide economic benefits for the communities. However, the process itself rendered that project unfeasible.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to pick up on something the member raised during his remarks. He cited the case of Yukon.

Yukon has its own environmental assessment process, agreed to by the federal government. It took several years to develop. The good news about the Yukon process is that when it was being developed there was extensive consultation with industry, with the labour movement, with environmental NGOs who were not described as radical or accused of laundering money, and with different groups working with the government. When the final process was brought into play in Yukon, everyone agreed to it and signed off on it. It is a very interesting model for us to be learning from.

Why does the government not follow the good advice and the good system that was put in place under the previous Liberal governments that actually arrived at a system that improved the system, with everybody agreeing with the actual changes?

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I do respect the hon. member's long and distinguished career in environmental policy-making.

In terms of Yukon, it is a model act and it was a good piece of legislation. However, I would remind my friend and others opposite that I do sit on the environment committee and we had an extensive review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. We heard much testimony about the failures of that act and how it could be made better. That testimony, from a wide variety of individuals and groups from across the country, certainly informed the decisions we finally made as a government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could just expand briefly on the pipeline.

The member spoke about the pipelines and the importance that we get to those markets, the LNG markets in Asia and other oil markets other than those in the United States. What is the hindering that? Why is it so important that we take advantage of this great resource, the gas, the shale gas and, of course, the oil that we have in Alberta?

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there are two world oil prices: Brent gas prices and West Texas gas prices. The West Texas price is, I gather, always the lower price. Because we are a captive supplier to the United States, we are forced to take a lower price, the West Texas price. Whereas, if we had another outlet for our energy resources, like on the west coast, we could avail ourselves of the true world price, which would bring in millions of dollars.

Also, from a competitive standpoint, it is very important to have more than one customer. That is why the pipeline to the west coast is so very important. With the current technology, it can be built in a very environmentally sound way.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we on this side think there is still a lot of work to do in order to make certain parts of our economy sustainable for the environment.

I wish I could rise tonight in this House and speak to a budget bill that was good for Canada and for Canadians. Sadly, I cannot. Instead, I rise to talk about the work of a Conservative government that hid its agenda from Canadians in the last federal election, that is about to pass legislation that would be harmful to Canadians and to our great country both at home and abroad. I rise to talk about a government that is again in contempt of Parliament and, as such, is demonstrating contempt for Canadians and their families.

Over the past few weeks, parliamentarians have been invited to look into this 420-page-plus brick of a so-called budget bill. However, this is not a budget bill. It is really a bill designed to implement many provisions of the Conservatives' hidden agenda, an agenda largely kept secret from the Canadian people during that last election. This bill is about sneaking in major changes to legislation that governs the fabric of Canadian society. In reality, it is a Trojan Horse waiting to get past the walls before unleashing havoc. Once passed, this bill would set changes which Canadians at this time can only guess about.

Bill C-38 has all sorts of provisions that would have an impact on everything from old age security, food inspection and health care transfers right on through to immigration. Of course, one-third of this Trojan Horse bill includes significant proposed changes to environmental protection regulations. This bill would dismantle the measures that were put in place to protect our environment and tackle climate change. They are changes that, rather than bringing us stronger protections, would try to turn back the clock and cancel international accountability measures on climate change. This bill would also repeal the current Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and, as a result, would allow the Conservatives to considerably weaken the assessment system. We would likely see federal environmental assessments plummet from roughly 6,000 a year to only a few dozen. I say quite categorically that the overhaul of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act does not belong in a budget bill. Under the guise of cutting red tape, the Conservatives would repeal the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act that Canadians have known for generations and replace it with a polluter-friendly Canadian environmental assessment act, circa 2012.

The official opposition contends that this proposed legislative change did not belong in the finance committee, that the environment committee is where the debate and study belonged, and that the committee should have been given the appropriate time to study the changes. This is political expediency at its worst.

Bill C-38 also sets out proposed time limits for the completion of reviews. The minister, and not anyone else, would have the power to shut down a review panel if he or she thought it would it not finish on time. Of course, we all know there is not a one-size-fits-all kind of box. Different environmental assessments require different periods of time. Some, because of unforeseen circumstances, might need to be lengthened. The Conservative government would slap a time limit on an assessment and if did not meet that, then too bad. The minister would have the power to change things and to cancel an assessment. Proper assessment is key to ensuring the benefit to and protection of Canadians. That type of decision needs due diligence supplied by comprehensive reviews by experts, not by a minister and also not through five-minute rounds of questions in the finance committee. However, this is just one example of the profound changes that this bill would make.

Many of the proposed changes in this brick of a budget bill have nothing to do with budget implementation. It is over 400 pages long, would amend 60 different pieces of legislation, rescinding half a dozen and adding three more. Again, I add that these proposed changes would be made with almost no input from Parliament or from Canadians. The disrespect for democracy is shameful.

The short title of this bill, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act, does not in any way reflect its content. It reminds me of the kind of doublespeak that was prevalent during the time of the Mike Harris government in Ontario, with bills like the poison pill Tenant Protection Act which stripped tenants of protections like rent control. However, I cannot say I am completely surprised. That government was fond of omnibus bills. The Minister of Finance, Minister of Foreign Affairs and President of the Treasury Board in the current government were also all part of those dark days.

I think the Speaker of the day said it best when he called it an “ominous bill”, and that is what we have here. Much of this ominous Trojan Horse bill has nothing to do with the budget. This budget is about austerity for austerity's sake and the Conservative's hidden agenda.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed that public sector job cuts would be in the order of almost 27,000 over the next three years. In addition, about 6,000 contract positions would also be cut. The government refused to detail where many of these cuts would be made, but many of the services and programs that Canadians rely upon would be diminished or eliminated. In fact, the refusal of the government to provide information about the actual number of public sector jobs it is about to axe, information it has but will not share with Parliament, is the very basis for our charge of contempt of Parliament currently being considered by the Speaker.

Make no mistake, the current Conservative government has no respect for Parliament. We have seen that very clearly over the past year now that the Conservatives have their majority based on the support of 39% of the population. They believe that gives them carte blanche to do whatever they want without oversight and without answering to Parliament or to the Canadian people.

I think the polls very clearly illustrate that Canadians are indeed watching. More and more of them are not liking what they see. I know that people in my riding are watching and I have been hearing from my constituents loud and clear.

From Ms. Cleveland in Scarborough, “I'm angered but not surprised with the PC budget. When they stopped using 'Progressive' in their name, they should have change it to the Regressive Conservatives. Stephen Harper promised jobs growth but delivered reckless cuts. There is nothing on jobs, nothing on inequality and nothing to strengthen our front-line health services....Also, the fact that he is using billions of dollars for military jets and warships but slashes funding for environmental issues which affect Canadians in every way, we are supposed to be a peacekeeping nation but he is slowly pushing us to become a fighting nation like the States. Of course, the big question surrounding Mr. Harper--” My apologies.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I would remind the hon. member, but I think he recognizes that the rule applies if the name of another hon. member appears in a quotation, for example.

The hon. member for Scarborough Southwest.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when reading quotes it is quite difficult to make that change on the fly. I apologize. I will continue the quote from Ms. Cleveland, “The Prime Minister and his majority status that allowed him to put on this ridiculous budget is from a false majority.”

From Ms. Hamilton in Scarborough, “The budget also ignores the needs of youth, especially for increased jobs, training opportunities and lower tuition fees. It disregarded the environment by imposing time limits on environmental studies and resource projects and providing zero leadership on environmental issues. It is dropping responsibility for providing leadership in health care, failing to address the fast-growing gap between rich and poor, and cutting funding to the arts by strategically attacking groups that take a critical perspective on the status quo; organizations like the CBC, NFB and Telefilm.”

From Mr. Murphy in Scarborough, “As a hard-working Canadian, I was dismayed when I found out that the current Tory regime was going to increase the age of retirement to 67. I work beside a man, and while I do not begrudge him anything because he is hard working, I do have a problem him being able to retire at 65 while I have to wait the extra two years. It's incredulous that because he was born six months before me that I have to remain in the workforce an extra two years. I'll have paid more taxes, more CPP, more EI premiums, but he will get more than I will. I think, however, what galls me even more is that the Prime Minister could retire tomorrow with a substantial pension. That's not right and something has to be done. It is no wonder why people are ambivalent about the democratic process.”

From a Ms. D. McLaren, “OAS cuts are a big mistake. It won't be long before there will be means testing and only the very poorest will get anything at all. One more nail in the coffin of universality. Although, I know that OAS does get clawed back at a high level of income, but that's different. We need a national housing program now. Our cities are now unaffordable for people coming up, i.e., younger people, immigrants and such.”

I would also like to point out that recently, new statistics were released that show that nearly one-quarter of all people who live in Toronto are living in poverty. It is shameful, but the Conservative government and its neglect would make the situation worse.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as all hon. members know, we are sent here not to read our correspondence to the House but to develop policies for the Government of Canada and the people of Canada. We are expected to present those policies as much on this side as on the other side.

My question for the hon. member is the following. Does his party have a budgetary policy for Canada's economy or can we look forward over the coming years to a series of recited tweets and emails, a jumble of views that do not even come close to a responsible approach to government? Also, does the hon. member opposite understand that his party's real policy on this budget is one of delay? In spite of the longest budget debate in 70 years, twice as long in committee as under the previous Liberal government, if they had their way we would not be passing this bill until the fall, which would affect market confidence and be unprecedented in Canada's recent history. Does he understand those things?

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

What I understand, Mr. Speaker, is that if the government had done the responsible thing and put the legislation where it belongs, where it can be studied in all of the appropriate committees, where changes to the Investment Canada Act would go to the industry committee and not the minister, where the environmental changes would go to the environment committee and not the finance committee, where changes to health care would go to the health committee where they belong, if the government had done the responsible thing, we would not be delaying the budget. This is an abomination and it deserves to be opposed.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence. I would like to remind the parliamentary secretary of something and put a question to my colleague at the same time.

The more I hear the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister speak, the more I am reminded of my great-grandparents who used to work for a well-established, old lumber baron from the Ottawa Valley. It sounds like the government is pursuing a 19th century strategy of hewing wood and drawing water instead of focusing on what this country needs and what this budget should be reflecting. We do not have an innovation strategy, our venture capital money is fleeing the country, and there is an energy efficiency race on around the world and we do not even have our sneakers on yet. Professor Porter from Harvard tells us that better environmental performance is absolutely consistent with enhanced competitiveness. The changes that are being brought in this budget would actually erode those standards and our competitiveness.

Could my colleague comment on that?

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

I would absolutely love to, Mr. Speaker. The analogy of going back to a 19th century economy is apt.

In 1999, among all of Canada's exports, 60% were finished products. In just the last decade, we have gone from exporting 60% finished products to only exporting 33% finished products. The other 66% is now unfinished or partially processed products. We are hindering the value-added sectors of our economy with this unbalanced approach that the Conservative government is taking. It is absolutely the wrong way to go.

With respect to innovation, we are looking at the Jenkins report and nothing as of yet is being implemented. There now are massive changes to the Investment Canada Act, where three times the previous limit is now going to be subject to review. All of the incubator companies and industries, the real innovators and productive companies, are now going to get gobbled up by large foreign companies. We are going to lose the benefits from them.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of RADARSAT, the government has not responded. There is a very important satellite investment decision that is going to take place within the next few months on whether we are going to have it or not. Could the member comment on that? It is important for all of Canada, our security and investment.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this was raised in the industry committee and was blocked by the Conservatives, like just about everything else.

RADARSAT is one of the crown jewels of Canada's innovation and science and technology companies. RADARSAT has a multi-mission that is very diverse. It will monitor icebergs on the east coast and oil pipelines. I would like to hear the government's answer about oil pipelines right now. It will monitor potential spills on the west coast, as well as Arctic sovereignty. The funding for this program is running out. I would absolutely love to hear what the delay is, what the timelines are and when the government is going to stop passing the buck and fund RADARSAT.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to speak about the bill to implement our budget, because it is a great bill. It is a plan that has not only the economic present at heart, but also our economic future and the future strength of the Canadian economy for generations to come.

Before starting on my substantive remarks, I would like to address some of the comments that were made by the previous speaker and some of the previous questioners.

We would not be doing our job here as parliamentarians if we did not present facts. The Jenkins report was mentioned. The previous speaker claimed that it has not been implemented in any way in this budget. As Canadians well know, members of the Jenkins commission have already acknowledged that the government has gone a long way toward adopting and implementing important conclusions from that report and that this is absolutely vital to the future of innovation and productivity in the country.

Second, the member in the corner, representing one of the ridings in our nation's capital, mentioned hewers of wood and drawers of water. I do not think that term was even fairly applied to the Ottawa of 19th century in a country that was leading the world in the production of timber and lumber. He, with his family background, should know that.

We were already at the cutting edge of productivity, at the cutting edge of the export market for this valuable commodity in the 19th century. To term even the workers of that time as hewers of wood and drawers of water, to use that Biblical language referring to them, is absolutely insulting. It represents the irrelevance of his party to economic debate in Canada at the moment.

This is a country that is leading the world in high-quality research and development, in the creation of new enterprises, in attracting new investment for manufacturing, for high technology, for the creation of jobs across the board. We are leading the world in resources, as well as leading at the very highest level of technological innovation and productivity, and the member opposite knows that.

My remarks will focus on three aspects of the budget and the implementation bill. The measures contained in it are complex but absolutely necessary and predictable, given our government's stated objectives in our platform on the budget earlier this spring, the goals of driving forward jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for the country.

The first point I would like to touch on relates to the whole issue of debt.

We are living in exceptional times. They are times of great opportunity globally, and not just for Canada but for the whole world. The global economy now represents, depending on whose statistics one believes, about $61 trillion. Estimates go as high as $70 trillion.

Canada's part in that is less than $2 trillion. Our estimated GDP for 2012 is $1.7 trillion, $1.8 trillion, but we need to keep in mind what kind of growth that represents. In only 1990, as the Cold War was ending, as the Berlin Wall had just fallen, as the Soviet Union was about to break up, global GDP was $27.5 trillion. Therefore, we have seen more than a doubling, maybe a tripling, of growth in global GDP in that time.

Why? It is because almost all the countries of the world, including large countries like Russia and Brazil, those that are among the leading emerging economies today, have adopted a set of rules based on market discipline and democracy. That has driven a phase of growth that is in many ways unrivalled. I think the only period that compares with this period is the 1950-1970 period, when recovery from the terrible Second World War was taking place, but in spite of the great recession we have had in recent years, this period in some ways surpasses that earlier period of absolutely stunning growth for the world.

However, this growth has been characterized by financial crises. Let us not forget that this week, of all times, when we are debating Greece and the Leader of the Opposition is calling for Canada to throw good money after bad into a cause that is neither ours nor historically a role that Canada has played, given the internal dynamic of the European Union and the European community.

This whole period over the last 20 years has been characterized by successive financial crises beyond our borders. We had a Scandinavian banking crisis in the early 1990s. We had a crisis in the European exchange rate mechanism in the early 1990s. We had Mexico in the mid-1990s. We had Southeast Asia and massive devaluations of currencies in the late 1990s. We had a Russian financial crisis, which I saw first-hand as an official in our Department of Foreign Affairs at the time in 1998. Then there was Turkey, Argentina, the dot com bubble, followed by the granddaddy of them all, the financial crisis in 2007, and the sovereign debt crisis in Europe, which we have seen since 2010 and which remains unsolved.

We in Canada have had to protect ourselves from these crises. We have to had to keep our economic fundamentals strong in spite of the pressures for indiscipline, the pressures for spending our way out of trouble in a way completely unjustified by common sense or prudence, and on the whole we have succeeded. We have the strongest record of currency stability and price stability among advanced nations. We have one of the lowest rates of debt. Members know the story: for our economic fundamentals, we are in many ways the envy of the world.

However, in recent times it has become harder than ever to maintain this record, to pursue fiscal consolidation and deficit reduction, in spite of the absolutely manifest evidence of some of our closest partners and allies going in other directions, often at great cost to their own economic fundamentals.

It is our view on this side of the House that one of the great achievements of this budget is to continue the course of setting an example, not just for Europe but for the whole world: an example of what moderation represents, an example of commitment to spending on an even keel and an example of spending not beyond one's means.

It has been harder, but we are managing it. We feel, along with many on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, that this is the best role that Canada can play.

There are examples in Europe itself of what, on a smaller scale, Canada has been doing. Sweden has implemented fiscal consolidation on a grand scale. I think the members opposite would be surprised to know that with its social democratic tradition, Sweden, with a right-of-centre government, recently has consolidated its finances and won the highest praise from the IMF, independent analysts and experts around the world for its fiscal record in the past few years. It has gone down the same path as Canada.

The same goes for the small country of Latvia, buffeted terribly by the financial crises of 2007, 2008 and 2009, but now, thanks to a 15% cut in terms of its budgetary spending in relation to GDP over several years, it has put itself back on course.

Nothing so dramatic is required in Canada's case, but we have done what is necessary to continue that record, which is exemplary and which is going to be a lodestone for many of those in Europe and Asia who are struggling to find a course forward.

The second point that we have accepted on this side, and that the other side has clearly not, is that more efficient, more effective government is the order of the day. I myself, as a former public servant, am the first to subscribe to the view that government can always be done better. Government must keep itself productive. It must keep itself modern. It must stay up to date with current practices, with technology, with innovations in management and organization.

That is exactly what this budget sets out to do by reforming environmental review, by focusing the Fisheries Act on the fisheries and by making labour market reforms through immigration and through employment insurance policies that will actually help Canadians—new and old Canadians—to get the jobs they want and for which they are increasingly qualified.

We are living in extraordinary times. Canada has an opportunity. We have an economic plan.

I often find myself asking myself and others what the NDP would have done in earlier phases of our history. When this country was being established as a series of colonies of European powers, would the NDP have considered the fur trade and the fishery in the 16th and 17th centuries as diseases? Was that what natural resources were to the NDP, even at that stage?

Would the timber and lumber industries, engines of our growth in the 19th century, have been cancelled by the NDP, had it been in power, because private enterprise was essential to their development, because they relied on natural resources?

I like to think they would not have, but reading the NDP constitution, listening to the Leader of the Opposition and listening to the members and critics opposite, I am afraid I am skeptical on that point.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague opposite.

He wants to know what the NDP would have done in the past. In my opinion, the members opposite are completely out of touch with reality.

I listened carefully as he praised Canada. As a Canadian, I too am very proud of Canada and its international reputation. However, I am skeptical when my colleague talks about modernization and being at the cutting edge of research.

Bill C-38 trims the Auditor General's oversight powers, eliminating mandatory audits of the financial statements of a dozen agencies, including the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

I would like to know what my colleague opposite has to say about these issues.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member opposite knows very well that most of the changes to the role of Auditor General proposed in this bill are there at the request of the Auditor General himself.

Let our statements in the House be sincere and precise. We are strengthening this government's reputation when it comes to transparency.

With regard to the hon. member's comments on the NDP's point of view, in the past, on our natural resources, my skepticism was related to the preamble of the NDP constitution. The preamble states that production should be directed to meeting the social and individual needs of people and not to the making of a profit.

According to the preamble of its constitution, the NDP does not accept profit, private ownership, in the true sense of the word. That means—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but time is limited.

The hon. member for Ottawa South.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up on my colleague's comments and recap for a second.

Let us see where we have come from.

In 1995, Canada balanced its budget. For 10 years, we had 10 consecutive years of surpluses. In 2006, the Conservative government was elected with a $13 billion surplus. Even before the recession hit, which the government denied, the government increased spending by 19%, the single largest increase in spending in Canadian history, making it the biggest-spending and biggest-borrowing government in Canadian history. The Minister of Finance rejected a bailout of the car industry, but had to because a pistol was put to his head by the Premier of Ontario and the President of the United States.

The record now is we see two sets of books on the F-35 and the PBO cannot get members to actually disclose the facts. We certainly have had the biggest billboards in Canadian history, with $30 million spent on 9,000 billboards across the country to advertise the budget. Now we are left with a $128 billion increase in debt.

It is the same old same old. These republican reformers are the same. They cut taxes, they increase spending, they borrow the money and they compromise public services.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Madam Speaker, the effrontery of the member opposite reaches new heights.

First, I did not think it was appropriate here or anywhere else to suggest that premiers should be wielding pistols in making policy, either literally or metaphorically. Second, it is absolutely clear to everyone outside of that member's immediate personal space that Canada has the best debt record of the G7, that it has the most stable financial sector in the world, that it is the best place to invest, as rated by a myriad of agencies, and that it is moving faster than its peers to reduce the deficit and address the debt, unlike the Premier of Ontario, of whom the member has a passing knowledge, and certainly unlike his interim leader, who put Ontario's economy into the ditch for a generation.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is very interesting to listen to the debate tonight in the House of Commons on Bill C-38 and to hear our Conservative colleagues tell us that Canada is the best of the best as they reel off their speaking points.

I want to begin my remarks tonight on Bill C-38 by pointing out what needs to be said, which is that the real threat of the budget bill is how it would contribute to income inequality in this country.

There is no question that over the last two decades we have seen a widening gap between wealth and poverty in this country. It is mainly because of public policies that we have seen a drain on things like affordable housing, eligibility for employment insurance, high day care costs and the cost of education. When we look at the record of the Conservative government, it is a terrible record of the growing inequality in this country.

What I find offensive about the bill is that it is completely out of balance. On the one hand, it does nothing to redress things like corporate tax cuts. The government has now given I think it is more than $60 billion to corporations that were profitable and actually did not need a break. On the other hand, the government has been cutting away at the bare essentials that Canadians need.

In a riding like mine, Vancouver East, we have a very low-income community. People struggle day by day to make ends meet. When we look at the bill, we should ask one simple question: What is in the bill that they could hope for that would improve their quality of life?

When we go through this massive budget bill, into which the government has thrown everything but the kitchen sink, and examine it clause by clause, issue by issue, it is very bad news for low-income and middle-income Canadians. On employment insurance, people cannot even get their phone calls returned, and those who are eligible cannot get on EI simply because the services are not being provided.

I do not fault the front-line workers at Service Canada for that. They are struggling to keep up with the call demand. I fault the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and the federal government who have deliberately arranged the services so that they are now so difficult to access it makes it almost impossible to have a query answered or to get onto employment insurance. This is something we hear about in my community office every day as people phone in.

One only has to look at pensions. I recently held a pension forum in my riding of Vancouver East. People are very worried. It is not just the older folks who might be approaching the age for OAS who are worried, but also the younger generation of Canadians who understand that the government will be cutting out their income security in the future. These people do not rely on RRSPs. They do not rely on the pooled registered pension plan that we have debated in this House. These people have paid into the Canada pension plan and need old age security. These are the people who will be hurt.

One of things that I find to be the most offensive in this budget is that it does absolutely nothing to address one of the fundamental crises we face in this country, which is the lack of affordable housing.

In metro Vancouver, which is the whole of the Lower Mainland, there is an organization called the Rental Housing Supply Coalition. The coalition includes renters, co-ops, social housing, rental apartment owners and managers, building owners and managers, as well as metro Vancouver officials. It is a very unusual coalition of people who do not often work together, but they have come together because they are so concerned about what is going on in metro Vancouver. There are approximately 31,000 households, which represent probably close to 100,000 people, spending so much on rent that they are just one cheque away from homelessness.

Unfortunately, we know about homelessness in our city, but this crisis is affecting working people now. It is affecting people who will never be able to afford a home. They are struggling to find an affordable place to live and are spending 40% to 60% of their income on rent.

Recently, the City of Vancouver issued a report which shows that homelessness has doubled in the last year. This is a city council that has put enormous energy, effort and investment into dealing with homelessness in our city. What has it received from the federal government? Zip, zero.

I feel angry that this budget which has been touted by the Conservative government is widening the gap and leaving so many people behind.

I will give another example in housing. There are over 600,000 households in Canada that are assisted under federal housing programs. There is a long record of social housing and co-op housing in this country. However, we are facing another crisis in that many of the long-term operating agreements are going to expire. We know that the number of assisted households has dropped by about 22,000 since 2007 and it is predicted that another 63,000 households will be affected by 2015. I have to point out that this is existing, stable, affordable social housing that we are at risk of losing because the Conservative government has been completely blind to organizations like the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the big-city mayors and housing organizations which have drawn to the Conservatives' attention that unless we—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I hear them laughing, Madam Speaker. I guess that homelessness and housing is a laughing matter for the Conservative members. How outrageous and how insulting that is to the 1.5 million Canadians who are struggling to meet their housing costs. I find it reprehensible that the Conservatives cannot even listen respectfully to a debate that is based on bringing forward the real experience of people who are having difficulties in their local communities.

Whether it is housing, pensions, EI, or even something like the Coast Guard in Vancouver, this budget is disappointing. Recently, I was very happy that two of our members, the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam and the member for St. John's East, came to Vancouver and held a very successful forum regarding the cutting of the Kitsilano Coast Guard station. There is an uproar in our city about why this cut has to take place. There are attacks on environmental organizations. In British Columbia, environmental assessments and proper reviews are really important. People take them very seriously. One only has to look at the hearings that are taking place for the northern gateway pipeline to know that people are very concerned about how our environment would be placed at risk. What would this bill do? In one fell swoop it would completely gut our environmental assessment process, after years of developing it into a legitimate process.

No matter which way we look at this bill, when the Conservatives put out the line that somehow Canadians are going to benefit, really what are they thinking about? Are they so blind to what is actually taking place? They do not have to take our word for it. They can talk to any organization, whether it is the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, or environmental groups. Any organization will point out how this bill would have such a deep impact on people in this country.

I have not even spoken about the process we have gone through, but I will end by saying that besides the substance of the bill, the process has been completely appalling. Imagine a bill that is over 400 pages long. Imagine a bill that would change over 70 pieces of legislation. Imagine a bill that was rushed through one committee and a subcommittee. Even the Senate has five committees studying this bill right now, before the bill has even been sent to the Senate, assuming it is going to pass here after the Conservatives ram it through. Even the Senate has taken more time to consider Bill C-38.

In this place, the Conservative government only has one agenda. The Conservatives do not care about what anybody has to say. They are hell-bent on getting this bill through. It is a crying shame that we are at this point.

More and more Canadians are waking up to this. The Conservatives may laugh today. They may say they do not really care what people think, but I think they have a surprise coming. I think that people who maybe even voted for local Conservative members of Parliament, people who are living on pensions and people who are struggling are very upset about this bill and how it would impact them.

Tonight we are debating this bill. We are going to go to the very end and use all the energy we can to show that the amendments we have brought forward on this bill are a reflection of the opposition that Canadians have to it. We are going to do that as much as we can.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, we will, of course, continue to listen to those who are interested in actually discussing the provisions of the bill.

What is extraordinary about the hon. member's comments is that there was not a single reference to jobs and how they are created. That is what a budget does in advanced economies, in any economy. It sets the framework for economic activity that employs people and creates growth. The hon. member also did not care to mention that over six years we have built, thanks to a generous and necessary stimulus package, more social housing than any Canadian government in history. We are laughing at her inability to cite facts.

Will the hon. member acknowledge that in the housing sector, including affordable housing for low-income Canadians, one of the primary drivers of success is going to be the private sector, private ownership, private initiative, the construction industry? What does she have in mind to support those sectors of this country's economy, which, in her community, my community and all communities across the country, are absolutely essential to jobs, growth and long-term prosperity?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, jobs are very important. I cannot think of a better way to stimulate the economy, produce a good investment and societal benefit than to build affordable housing in terms of creating good jobs, being good for the environment and using our own Canadian resources.

The fact is, if the member took the time to look at the metro Vancouver housing coalition, he would see that there are apartment owners and managers in that coalition. They are very concerned about the lack of attention and leadership by the federal government on this issue in our city. It is now a crisis. As I said at the beginning, it is a very unusual coalition of people who do not usually work together, but they have come together because they are so concerned.

To hear the member say that the government has built more social housing than any government in Canada is simply untrue. The government has been cutting social housing. Thousands and thousands of operating agreements are now at risk. There is a risk of losing existing social housing, and unfortunately, it is going to happen unless the government reverses its course.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question about the change in the age of eligibility for retirement from 65 to 67.

This decision affects our health care programs. We know that, right now, health care programs in the provinces are really stretched to the limit. Some are running deficits and having problems. We are talking about an increase in the age of eligibility for retirement from 65 to 67. People will have to work longer. This can result in workplace accidents and more claims being filed with insurance companies.

I would like the hon. member to elaborate a little more on the impact that these decisions will have on the economy.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, first I should point out that the old age security system is absolutely not in jeopardy. Many independent reports show that it is entirely sustainable. This manufactured crisis that is being put forward by the government simply does not exist.

Raising the age of eligibility will have an impact. It will impact individuals who, if they have low incomes and cannot collect OAS for another two years, possibly will be forced onto the welfare rolls. It also has a direct impact on provincial costs. People are just beginning to realize this.

I would point out that Susan Eng, the vice-president of the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, put it very well. She stated, “Rather than selfishly guarding their own interests, as has been suggested, CARP members and other older Canadians are defending an important part of the social safety net and do not want to see it torn up for their children and grandchildren”.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak tonight to our budget implementation bill, Bill C-38. I have been listening to most of the speakers today, as I have been here on duty. Speakers on our side have been talking about the substance of the bill and different aspects of the bill that are of interest to those individual speakers. On the opposite side, we have heard a lot about process and why members opposite are upset about it, so I am happy to speak about process this evening.

I want to make sure those tuning in at home and those in the House who have not been here for many years understand the actual process of how we get here.

Every year, the finance committee meets and starts a pre-budget consultation. In the fall of the year it goes across the country, meeting with different individuals and groups to get input on what should be in the budget. The Minister of Finance does the same. Our ministers do the same, and I am assuming some opposition members also do some consultation.

Our Minister of Finance has been very gracious in asking for input from all sides of the House on the development of the budget, and this year it was developed and presented in late March. It was a very large budget. It had lots in it. There are lots of changes in the budget, and that is a policy document. The budget is really the policy aspect of where we would like to see the country go, based on the financial aspects put out in the budget--not specifics, but policy direction.

Members should know that, under the current law, there is actually no law requiring the government to present a budget at any particular time during the year. Finance ministers in Canadian history have presented a budget in the spring, and we continue that process, but that is not a legal requirement.

If we look at what has happened south of the border in the United States, it has been two or three years since a budget has been presented. They are having a tremendous amount of financial difficulties, as we all know, and part of their problem is that they cannot get their act together in terms of putting their country on the right financial footing from the government's perspective. Having a budget that could pass both Houses is part of the issue.

Here we have a budget that has come forward. It has been passed by this House and by the Senate. The budget we pass, we pass it in principle. From the budget, there are implementation bills. There are actually two, one in the spring, which we are debating tonight, and one in the fall, because it is difficult or almost impossible for the bureaucratic staff to go through every change and policy direction that is in the budget and turn it into actions. That is what an implementation budget is. It is turning what was said in the budget into actual actions, and of course it will require changes to different laws and to different aspects. This budget does exactly the same.

There has been some indication that what happened in the budget, which was passed, all of a sudden is showing up in this implementation bill, coming from nowhere. I want to point out some of the items, and I only have time to do four or five, that were actually in the budget, which this House passed and which are in the implementation bill. Some of it the opposition considers controversial. I do not know how controversial it is when it has been there.

Let us start with a simple one. In Part 2, on the sales and excise tax measures, which changes the GST and HST treatment of some medical devices, assistive devices and medical treatments, we have zeroed them out. Basically we had to pay GST on them before. In the implementation bill, we do not.

If we look at the jobs, growth and prosperity budget, which was passed by the House, and we turn to page 167, it talks about health related tax measures. It talks about the economic action plan 2012, which proposes expanded health-related tax relief under the GST and HST. It is right there in black and white. It is in the budget book. It was passed by this House.

The bureaucrats take what was in the budget and turn it into action, from policy to action in the implementation bill. It is there. We cannot argue that there is something new that we have not seen before that has not been discussed. It is right there.

Let us move on. One area that has been very controversial is what is happening with the natural resources area. In chapter 3 we have responsible resource development from pages 88 to 100 of the budget bill, “Modernizing the Regulatory System for Project Reviews”. That is almost 20 pages on what the policy changes should be to make our system more efficient and effective with respect to regulatory reviews, environmental assessments and improving projects. The issue is not, as we are hearing about, that we are making changes. Those changes are clear, if members read the budget bill, which they got on March 29, which is the day it was presented. We have had it for a couple of months. We know what changes there will be. All this budget implementation bill does is take what was said in the budget, what was passed by the House, and implement it. Of course it requires some changes to legislation. The policy is there and we are implementing that policy.

Here is another small one that I think is important. If we look at Part 4, Division 3, there is a section in the implementation bill about PPP Canada, the public-private partnership program we have. If members look at page 156 of the budget, imagine that, it talks about infrastructure money and that we will work with the municipalities to provide support for infrastructure development in this country. Part of that policy discussion was to enhance the role of the PPP to make that happen, to get the private sector involved with the public sector to make a difference in the infrastructure in this country. It is in the budget.

There are no surprises. The implementation bill did not come out of the blue with something that was not there before. It is on page 156. It is not exactly that, because it is policy. The budget document is policy, which we have to implement. That is what this act does.

We have a really simple one. Part 4, Division 16, talks about the Currency Act, and in the budget, on page 217, it talks about the elimination of the penny and why we are doing it. It is a policy decision. It is in the budget passed by this House and the Senate. In principle, we agreed to it. What do we have to do? We have to implement the change. It is in the implementation bill that is before us on page 217. It comes as no surprise to anyone that we are getting rid of the penny. It is in this bill. There are no changes and no issue with process.

Another piece, which I have heard today, which really surprises me, is about Part 4, Division 17, amending the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Canada Health Act. It is at page 190, and it goes on for a number of pages. There was one speaker on the opposite side who said we were cutting back money to the provinces in terms of the federal transfer for health, which is absolutely inaccurate. If we look in the budget book, we see it talks about what we are doing in terms of the plan we have to extend the 6% all the way to 2016-2017, which inaccurately was portrayed that we were cutting back. In fact, during the election we promised one year less, I believe, maybe even two years less that we would extend that 6% and then we would review it. The Minister of Finance stated in his budget book, in his policies, that we were extending that for an additional two years on top of what we had already committed to and that we would have a 3% accelerator after that. Therefore, it was clear that was what we were doing.

Guess what? What is in the implementation portion of this bill is implementing what was in that policy document. There are no surprises. It was there in black and white, supported by the House. It was not supported by every party, do not get me wrong, but it was passed, so if it is passed by the House I think we should implement it. Instead of just passing something and not doing anything about it, we are actually doing something about it.

This implementation bill is big, but so was the budget. The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister had the leadership foresight to say we need to continue to do things to make it so we do not fall behind, like other countries around the world—

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member's time has elapsed. Questions and comments. The hon. member for Trinity—Spadina.

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

Madam Speaker, 800 archives and other heritage institutions across the country are supported by the national archival development program, but the budget cuts to Library and Archives Canada eliminate the program.

This means that Library and Archives Canada will not be able to meet its legislative mandate to support the development of the library and archival communities of Canada. Given that it is eliminating all its support, it will have a devastating impact on Canadians' ability to access their own heritage and learn their own history.

What is the justification for this steep cut of $1.7 million to the archival program?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an excellent question because I have an excellent answer.

I was at committee just last week when not the chief archivist but a member from the financial area came in and said they were cutting a certain number of jobs and activities. Absolutely. It was because it was part of the archives' leadership management plan long before DRAP, long before we cut.

The NDP asked for the number or percentage of that change, in terms of how they operate, that is due to DRAP or the economic action plan changes that we are implementing. It was 3% or 4%, exactly what other departments are doing.

That person is making a managerial change because technology has changed and they can operate differently from the way they have in the past. Those changes would have happened regardless—

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Edmonton—Leduc.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Madam Speaker, I used to serve with my colleague on the finance committee. We do miss him. He is perhaps the foremost expert in this Parliament on estimates.

I do appreciate his going through the whole pre-budget process, linking that in to the budget and then into the budget implementation bills, the first one in the spring and the second one in the fall.

I just want to point out some of the measures that are in here, in terms of amending the medical expense tax credit, changing the registered disability savings plan, extending the temporary mineral exploration tax credit and limiting the period to a year for which a tax shelter identification number is valid. I will also go to part 4, the last one, amending the First Nations Land Management Act and changes to labour and skilled workers.

These were all recommendations in our pre-budget report, which was tabled in Parliament in December. I want the member to comment on the link, again, between the pre-budget report, the budget, the budget implementation acts and how the policy thread goes between all those various documents,

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the chair of the finance committee who has done an excellent job as the chair in making sure that exactly what Canadians are telling the finance committee in its pre-budget consultations is understood and the issues are researched and brought forward in a report that goes to the Minister of Finance about what could be implemented through the policy document of the budget, and in this case was implemented based on the solid advice of the finance committee, and then turns into an implementation bill.

I want to thank the member for having his committee sit for 50 hours to discuss this particular bill. I thank the—

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Questions and comments. A last brief question, the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member talks about consultation and the process.

I am just wondering which provinces the government consulted with. Can the member table the results of the consultation done in northern Ontario? Can he explain the consultation process done with senior citizens about the changes to OAS and table that report?

I notice the member for Sault Ste. Marie is sitting beside him, and I know that the seniors in Sault Ste. Marie have been writing letters to the editors and are not supportive of the changes to OAS.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, what happens, so the member knows, is that all members of the finance committee get together and make a decision about which province, which city, to which area they will go. They try to change it every year.

When I was on finance, we were in northern Canada one fall for a number of times. We have been to other provinces. In fact, as a member of Parliament, I have been on finance for five years and I have been in every province and territory in the country. The committee does a thorough job of consulting all Canadians regardless of their age or their—

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Etobicoke North.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Speaker, over the last three decades, high profile events and reports focused the world's attention on the global environment and its needs and the international action necessary to improve the situation: the 1987 World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future report; the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer; the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and its Agenda 21; the 2000 Millennium Summit in New York and its millennium development goals; the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg; and the 2005 Kyoto protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, just to name a few.

Thirty years ago sustainable development was defined as development which met the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It was commonly understood that we did not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrowed it from our children.

Twenty years ago more than 178 governments signed Agenda 21, which reads:

Humanity stands at a defining moment in history. We are confronted with...the continuing deterioration of the ecosystems on which we depend for our well-being. However, integration of environment and development concerns and greater attention to them will lead to the fulfilment of basic needs, improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer, more prosperous future. No nation can achieve this on its own; but together we can - in a global partnership for sustainable development.

With one fell swoop, through Bill C-38, Canada is abandoning sustainable development and returning to the 1950s way of thinking and acting, namely fast tracking development at any cost. Canada is also abandoning its fair share for a global partnership for sustainable development, particularly through walking away from Kyoto.

For 25 years, I fought for an improved environment, consulted to Environment Canada and served on the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Like millions of Canadians, I am devastated by the government abandoning the environment, sustainable development and its international responsibility, muzzling scientists and silencing the voices of its critics.

Last week more than 500 organizations across Canada, for example, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, David Suzuki Foundation, the Pembina Institute spoke out for democracy and the environment in Canada. The Black Out Speak Out website states, “Our land, water and climate are all threatened by the latest federal budget. Proposed changes will weaken environmental laws and silence the voices of those who seek to defend them. Silence is not an option”.

While the government claims a balanced approach to protecting the environment and promoting economic growth, its actions are in direct opposition. Bill C-38 repeals the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act. It weakens several environmental laws, including protection for species at risk in water, and nearly eliminates fish habitat in the Fisheries Act. It gives the federal cabinet authority to overrule the decision by the National Energy Board and eliminates the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

We have environmental legislation to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. For example, the pea soup sulphur dioxide fog that killed 4,000 people in London, England in 1952; minamata disease that poisoned thousands of Japanese with methyl mercury, beginning in 1956; and the oil slick and debris river that caught fire in Cleveland, Ohio in 1969.

During the subcommittee's review of part 3 of Bill C-38, Ms. Rachel Forbes, staff council, West Coast Environmental Law, said that she did not believe the proposed amendments in the new legislation as currently drafted would accomplish any of the government's four pillars, namely: more predictable and timely reviews; less duplication in reviewing projects; strong environmental protection; and enhanced consultation with aboriginal peoples and may actually hinder them.

The hon. Thomas Siddon has repeatedly voiced concerns regarding Bill C-38 saying, “They are totally watering down and emasculating the Fisheries Act...they are making a Swiss cheese out of [it]. At the subcommittee he reported:

The bottom line...to take your time and do it right. To bundle all of this into a budget bill, with all its other facets, is not becoming of a Conservative government, period.

Mr. Stephen Hazell, senior counsel, Ecovision Law, agreed:

My recommendation is that this subcommittee remove the proposed CEAA 2012 from Bill C-38, and propose to the overall finance committee that it be referred to the House of Commons environment and sustainable development committee for its review

The environment sections of Bill C-38 should be removed, presented as a stand-alone bill and be sent to a legislative committee for clause-by-clause study.

The government should also ensure that any change to existing environmental laws and regulations be made in a manner that respects aboriginal peoples and treaty rights of aboriginal peoples in Canada that are recognized and affirmed in the Constitution.

National Chief Shawn Atleo reported during subcommittee hearings:

To date, first nations have not been engaged or consulted on any of the changes to the environmental and resource development regime proposed within Bill C-38...In its current form, Part 3 of C-38 clearly represents a derogation of established and asserted first nations rights.

The Union of BC Indian Chiefs voiced similar concerns in an open letter:

The federal government’s unilateral and draconian approach to amending the environmental assessment process is not being quietly accepted by First Nations, environmental organizations, or the general Canadian public.

Canadians should know that after a mere 16 hours of study of what the environment commissioner calls some of the most significant policy developments in 30 to 40 years, the subcommittee is left with many questions regarding the legislation. In light of these, the government should, for example, table in the House of Commons: what types of projects will be included or excluded under the proposed changes to CEAA, and specifically, the proportion and types of current assessments that will no longer receive federal oversight; assessments of the environmental assessment process in each province and territory, how the government will define whether or not a provincial process is equivalent to the federal process and how assessment of cumulative impacts will be undertaken; and the projected cost of changes to the CEAA for each province and territory.

Governments worldwide are concerned with making the shift to the green economy, to stimulate growth, create new jobs, eradicate poverty and limit humanity's ecological footprint. One of Canada's reforms must be a shift to the green economy. It is therefore extremely unfortunate that the bill pits the economy against the environment and that the debate is so polarized. Canadians deserve a real discussion.

Going forward, the government should recognize that it does not face a choice between saving our economy and saving our environment, but rather between being a producer and a consumer in the old economy and being a leader in the new economy. It should initiate discussions with provinces, territories, municipalities, labour organizations, industry sectors, first nations and others to develop a green economy strategy for Canada, with goals for 2015, 2020, 2025 and 2030. It should ensure that its development strategy includes skills development, training programs, certification courses and transitional policies for workers and communities.

Finally, the government is waging an unprecedented war on science and on the environment with uncertain consequences for nature and society. As in the baseball adage, “It's the top of the ninth”, the government has been hitting nature hard, but nature always bats last.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Madam Speaker, I enjoy serving with the hon. member on environment committee. I always welcome her comments and expertise.

I would like to talk about something that has not been talked about much and that is the environment itself.

Is the member aware that the Canadian environmental sustainability indicators program assessed water quality in 157 countries? Canada came in 9th out of 157 countries. We are ahead of countries like Japan, France, Russia, Italy, UK, Germany, U.S.A. and Australia. This was a 2010 report done under the Conservative government's watch.

Similarly, the 2011 national pollutant lease inventory report showed again, under the government's watch, that SO2 emissions were 2000 kilotons in 2006 and they went down below 1500 kilotons in 2009. These are clear and specific environmental results of the government.

Does the member think looking at the environment itself and what is going on out there is important as opposed to just focusing on process?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Absolutely, Madam Speaker. I also enjoy serving with my colleague. That is why I am so concerned about the cuts to science.

Last summer, there were cuts of 700 to Environment Canada. This budget announces another 200 cuts. We have to keep monitoring. We need those scientists. We cannot muzzle them, because worst case scenarios do happen and prevention is the best line of defence.

We have only to think back to May 2000, when 2,300 people fell ill after E. coli bacteria contaminated the water supply of Walkerton, Ontario. Sweeping Conservative cutbacks to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment contributed to the tragedy. It was the most serious case of water contamination in Canadian history.

In 1989, the oil tanker Exxon Valdez struck Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound.

We simply cannot afford economic development with reduced environmental consideration, as we risk environmental disaster and cleanup costs, which we may pass on to our children.

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

Madam Speaker, it was an honour to sit on the subcommittee with the hon. member. During that hearing, we talked about the basic surface hydrography and how each water course fed into another water course and how the whole health of the system depended upon first order streams.

Could the hon. member outline the changes to the Fisheries Act and other elements in the bill that would affect biodiversity in Canada and reduce biodiversity in our water systems?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Speaker, the government should protect fish and fish habitat, not erode 144 years of history. The department should develop new Fisheries Act policies and regulations in collaboration with all stakeholders. The government should define which fish would fall under aboriginal, commercial and recreational fisheries and identify the criteria that would be used. The government should table in the House of Commons the projected costs to each province and territory resulting from the downloading of responsibilities from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague about the international trend toward energy efficiency.

We have known for decades that better environmental performance, both in a company and in a nation state, is absolutely consistent with enhanced competitiveness for that company and the country involved.

Could she help us understand how important it is for Canada to get into the energy efficiency race to be able to compete properly?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Speaker, Canada has missed opportunities. When we had the economic stimulus, it could have been a green stimulus. Canada invested $3 billion, the United States invested $112 billion and China invested $221 billion. Who got the jobs? It was not Canada. We need a green economy strategy. We need a national sustainable energy strategy. Energy efficiency has to be part of it.

Business understands that when we reduce our inputs, we reduce our waste, we save on the bottom line.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the chance to join in this debate and rise in support of Bill C-38, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act. However, I must express my disappointment that the opposition has chosen delay tactics over responsible governance, threatening the passage of this legislation by obstructing crucial measures to promote jobs and economic growth in Canada.

Our Conservative government has been very clear that jobs and economic growth are our top priorities. It is the same today as when we were first elected in 2006. In fact, nearly 760,000 net new jobs have been created since July 2009, and 90% of them full-time. This is reflected in our most recent budget.

Members should listen to the words of Canadian Chamber of Commerce president, Perrin Beatty, who stated:

We have urged the government to focus on where Canada needs to be five or 10 years from now, even if it means taking tough decisions now. The government has acted.... The result will be a stronger economy and more jobs.

That is what the budget implementation legislation before us today is all about. It is about ensuring that our economy continues to create dependable jobs and a high qualify of life today and for the future.

Several of my hon. colleagues have spoken very eloquently to the legislation as a whole and to the importance of taking responsible action now to sustain our economy while keeping taxes low and returning to balanced budgets. I will spend my time discussing the components of Bill C-38 that pertain to matters of public safety and security, in particular our border with the United States.

In addition to strengthening our economy and building our government's strong track record of job creation, Bill C-38 contains some very important provisions that would further enhance our ability to keep the border safe while also improving the way government operates.

I am very proud to note that this legislation contain a provision that would help us crack down on organized crime groups, gang members and other thugs who often earn a major portion of their illegal income by smuggling contraband goods, such as guns and drugs, or by smuggling illegal migrants across our border with the United States.

The relevant provisions would implement the Canada-United States Framework Agreement on Integrated Cross-Border Maritime Law Enforcement Operations and, as a key feature of those operations, authorize specially trained and designated Canadian and U.S. law enforcement officers to work together to enforce the law on both sides of our shared border. They would involve specially trained and appointed Canadian and United States law enforcement officers working in integrated teams, transiting back and forth across the border to deal with cross-border criminality, while still respecting the sovereignty of both Canada and the United States.

In layman's terms, the proposed legislation would regularize the practice of allowing law enforcement vessels, jointly crewed by designated U.S. Coast Guard and Canadian RCMP officers, to enforce the law on both sides of the international boundary line. In Canadian territory, these teams, known as shiprider teams, would enforce Canadian law and, in the U.S. territory, would enforce U.S. law while under the direction and control of a designated officer from the host country. What that means is that organized crime would no longer be able to exploit the border to evade arrest and prosecution. Instead, law enforcement would be able to continue to pursue and arrest criminals regardless of which side of the border they are on. This is good news for everyone.

I should point out that this practice has already been occurring on a pilot basis since 2005 for certain high-profile events, such as the 2006 Super Bowl in Detroit and the 2010 Olympic Winter Games in Vancouver. We know that this shared approach is effective when it comes to cracking down on cross-border crime.

I will take a moment to read some testimony heard by the finance committee during its extensive consideration of Bill C-38 which details the experience of the RCMP during its 2007 piloting of this important program.

With respect to the 2007 pilot projects that were the longer term pilots, two of them were concurrent, one on the west coast and one on the St. Lawrence seaway in the area of Cornwall. Chief superintendent, Joe Oliver, told the members of the finance committee:

The Shiprider teams were involved in a number of interdictions and arrests. They were involved in six direct arrests, and they contributed to 40-some other arrests. They were involved in the seizure of contraband cigarettes and marijuana, the confiscation of proceeds of crime—vessels that were used for cross-border smuggling and modified for those purposes—as well as conveyances on land. They contributed.

[...] In one case, in Cornwall, there was a complaint of a child abduction that was in the border zone and a vessel had been used. The Shiprider team had the operational flexibility to cross back and forth checking marinas along the Canada-U.S. border, on both sides of the border, which then helped them quickly identify where the vessel had landed and helped identify the vehicle, which ultimately led to the safe return of a child. They were seen as contributing to that investigation as well.

These highlight some of the successes that we've seen with the deployment of Shiprider along our shared waterways with our American counterparts.

Those are the kinds of results that Bill C-38 would deliver to Canadians.

When it comes to public safety, the legislation contained in the bill would ensure that law enforcement has the tools it requires to keep Canadian families safe and our borders secure.

I will now speak to an additional measure contained in the bill that would similarly promote economic benefits by protecting the border and cracking down on the smuggling of contraband.

Amendments to the Customs Act would provide urgent legal authority for the border officers currently operating at the Cornwall border crossing to stop incoming traffic. These amendments would authorize the Minister of Public Safety to designate a “mixed traffic corridor” when operations of the custom office are interrupted due to extenuating circumstances and impose new obligations on all travellers using such a corridor to stop and report to border guards.

I must emphasize that this new designation authority is only intended to be used in extenuating circumstances, for example, in case of flooding, fire damage, or other situations that render an existing customs office unusable or inaccessible so that it can be quickly relocated nearby rather than having to be closed altogether. This would ensure the ongoing operation of Cornwall's port of entry and the trade that it supports between Canada and the United States.

Both of the measures I have spoken about today are critical to the safety and security of all Canadians and would ensure that our government delivers on its commitments in a fiscally prudent manner.

I. therefore. urge all hon. members to support the bill and to stand up to the divisive delay tactics the opposition has relied on to defeat this critical piece of legislation that would bring jobs, growth and long-term economic prosperity to all Canadians.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know my colleague well. I was in his riding on the weekend to meet with women from the Union culturelle des Franco-Ontariennes. We started seeing cuts and the elimination of a number of programs in 2006, and this is still happening under this government with this omnibus bill. I can say that these women are very concerned.

The cuts have had a number of consequences: the elimination of the notion of equality in the mandate of Status of Women Canada; the elimination of the court challenges program; the abolition of federal funding partnerships for child care; cuts to funding for rights organizations; cuts to research, particularly to the women's health network; the repeal of the Pay Equity Act; the elimination of the long form census; and a lack of action on violence against women.

Furthermore, this bill will have a huge impact on women because of the changes to old age security and employment insurance and the new cuts to public services.

What does my colleague have to say about the cuts to women's programs that are setting us back instead of moving us forward? We used to be in first place, and now we are in 19th place.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not know whether I was at the same meeting the hon. member was at, but the women I met were the REAL women. I have met with the group on three different occasions and it is a very supportive group. Yes, its members have their concerns but on balance they support this legislation and they want it to go forward because they know this is the legislation that we need for Canada to have jobs, improve the economy and give us long-term prosperity.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very insightful speech in terms of border safety and guards and all the issues within the budget that are so helpful to the Canadian economy.

There have been 760,000 jobs created in this country. There are a lot of women's issues and a lot of small business issues. Women actually are the search engine of small business. There are more women in small business than any other population in Canada.

I would like the member to talk about why it so important for the opposition parties to pass this bill in a speedy manner to keep the economy on balance and so people can continue to have their jobs here in this country.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for her work on the smuggling issue. She is a fine example of what can be accomplished in this House.

The hon. member is quite right. Women form more than half of the economy these days in terms of what they do for the economy and they, too, want to move forward. They want to have the type of environment created where we can move ahead and create jobs. We have created 760,000 net new jobs. We have all kinds of accolades from the IMF. Clearly, whether it be for women or men, this budget, this tactic and this strategy of what this government is doing is right on the money.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I miss Anthony Rota more and more. I must admit that it is disturbing to hear this kind of speech, which shows just how out of touch the member is with the regions and with seasonal workers, even though he represents them.

What does he have to say to seasonal workers who will have to leave because their government did not do what it had to do to protect them?

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member may be missing Mr. Rota more and more but I can tell the House that members of my community are not missing him. We have created a record number of jobs in our community since our election. I have personally been involved in many solid projects and the creation of much more investment in the community and I am proud of my record. I am looking forward to creating more opportunities in the three and a half years—

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative government introduced Bill C-38, which is supposed to be a budget bill focused on creating good jobs in Canada and which could help both urban centres and rural regions develop economically.

My colleagues and I analyzed this budget and came to the conclusion that the government has failed and that this is a rather pathetic attempt. The changes to employment insurance in this budget appear to be a direct attack on workers. This does not surprise me, because in recent weeks, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development called seasonal workers lazy.

In a region like mine, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, seasonal work is a reality for workers. For those who are not familiar with my region, it is known for its forestry workers. Tourism and agriculture are also important in this region.

These three sectors of economic activity are very important pillars of Canada's economy. Workers have no choice but to apply for employment insurance from Service Canada for a few weeks or months, between seasons and job losses. These people will suffer from the cuts. In light of the fact that we are barely out of an economic recession, the situation is extremely precarious. I would like the unemployment rate to be lower than it is in my region, but the reality is that the rate is rather high. This Conservative budget must help develop the economy.

For example, I did not find anything in this budget bill that would help the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean economy, such as increasing the gas tax transfer to municipalities. There is a large city in my region, Saguenay, but there are also eight smaller cities and small towns with 500 to 6,000 residents each. For small municipalities like these, infrastructure costs call for significant financial resources. Infrastructure needs include waste water treatment systems, paving and even drinking water systems. Unfortunately, the government is more or less leaving small municipalities to their own devices. That is why I am pleased with the NDP's proposal to double the gas tax transfer to municipalities and to index it yearly. This measure shows that, unlike the Conservative government, the NDP really cares about helping small municipalities make progress.

It is important for the federal government to invest in rural infrastructure, but it is just as important to develop the economy. A development project has been proposed for my riding. Even the defeated Conservative candidate supported it. The proposal is to set up a customs office in Bagotville. Because the community does not currently offer that service, it cannot welcome foreign visitors, such as Europeans with a lot of money to spend, directly. Unfortunately, because the community lacks a customs office, it is losing a lot of those people because the process is complicated. Those people have to go through customs in Quebec City or Montreal, and when they are on vacation, they are not interested in driving four hours to get to the Saguenay.

This proposal is sound. The community has submitted its request to the Canada Border Services Agency several times, but unfortunately, it has met with rejection each time. Even the region's MP, the member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean and Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, has done nothing. He made it clear that the project is not a high priority for him. I find that deplorable because it is, after all, an economic measure that even the Conservative candidate supported during the last election campaign a year ago. Unfortunately, the Conservatives are kind of breaking their promise.

Other measures could help Canadian families and families in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. For instance, I would like to propose a refundable tax credit for family caregivers. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Health, along with other colleagues of mine in the NDP. We realize that people who need to take care of a family member or loved one and who must take on a new role—and might even have to quit their job to do so—are not receiving a refundable tax credit.

This is the real kicker, because these people are already losing income by quitting their jobs. Since their income has decreased, they often do not pay taxes. On top of the huge sacrifice they are making to take care of their loved one, their income also goes down. Since they no longer pay income tax and the tax credit is not refundable, they cannot access the money that could have helped them get out of poverty. We have a great deal of poverty in Canada, even though it is not always obvious.

If the Conservative government would invest just $700 million to improve the guaranteed income supplement, this would lift 250,000 Canadian seniors out of poverty. We in the NDP care deeply about this. It is very important to us that Canadian seniors get out of poverty, especially since these are the people who dedicated their lives to building their communities. They have made sacrifices in order to build this beautiful country of ours, and the Conservative government is leaving them destitute.

It would be so easy. It would cost $700 million, which is not much for the Government of Canada, to lift seniors out of poverty. Unfortunately, we know where Conservative members' interests lie. All they want to do is lower taxes for large corporations.

In the NDP, we are not against lowering taxes, not at all. However, lowering taxes on businesses has to be done wisely. That is why we are proposing to give a 2% tax cut to small and medium-sized businesses, because they are the ones creating the most new jobs in Canada, more than the corporations are.

I will come back to my region again. Over the past few decades, there have been plant closures and many families in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean have lost their income. What is more, with the forestry industry faltering right now, it is very hard for a region like mine to develop economically.

With a 2% tax credit, small businesses would see their tax rate go from 11% to 9%. That would give some flexibility to the employers who employ people from their communities. This credit might allow them to have higher profits at the end of the year, expand their business and hire more workers.

I think that is quite reasonable. I am pleased that my party is taking this position.

I also want to condemn the fact that, in its budget, this Conservative government is abolishing funding for the National Council of Welfare. It is an independent, federal group that advises the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development on poverty. Its annual budget is only $1.1 million. That is peanuts for the Government of Canada.

In recent years, the National Council on Welfare has done fantastic studies that have helped both the government, because the studies are submitted to the minister, and non-profit organizations and the provinces, which help people escape poverty.

The government chose not to listen and has eliminated funding for the National Council of Welfare. Unfortunately, this organization is irreplaceable. We will lose a great deal of expertise on the fight against poverty.

I would also like to talk about another item that I did not see in the Conservative budget and that could help the economy. All members know how the Canada summer jobs program helps communities hire young people and gives them summer jobs. It could be that first job that provides the first work experience. It can also give young people experience working in their field in the summer. Unfortunately, the budget has been frozen for several years.

The minimum wage is increasing; the program is becoming increasingly popular; and more and more organizations are submitting applications. However, every year, the program becomes less and less generous. It is really unfortunate because everyone here knows how much it helps our communities. So that is a suggestion that I am making to the Conservative government.

I know that the Conservatives like tax credits. Why not give a refundable tax credit for adult physical fitness.

There is an obesity problem in Canada. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Health, and we talk a lot about prevention. We need to give Canadians a bit of a nudge to help them take charge of their health because, in the end, this is going to cost money.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member's speech. The conditions that exist in his riding are very similar to those that exist in mine, particularly with regard to the forestry industry.

I am very concerned about the seasonal workers in my riding. I am also very concerned about the exodus of workers from the rural regions to the cities. The regions will be empty because of the measures contained in the budget.

Does the hon. member share my concerns?

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree completely with my NDP colleague.

In fact, for the past several years, Saguenay has seen an exodus of its population—especially the youth population—for many reasons. Ultimately, the main reason for the exodus is employment. People are moving to urban centres like Quebec City and Montreal, which is causing a demographic imbalance in my riding.

The budget proposes changes to employment insurance. Yet seasonal workers are good workers. For instance, people who take care of snow removal cannot simply look for another job in the summer, because there is no snow. People who work in the forestry sector and those who plant trees or do landscaping cannot be guaranteed work in the winter.

In order to win more votes, the government decided to focus all its efforts on urban centres, and now the regions are paying the price. This will be terrible for Atlantic Canada. It is a slap in the face to the people of the Atlantic provinces, Quebec and rural areas across Canada.

What I would like to tell the government is simply to be reasonable and govern for all Canadians, instead of discriminating against some Canadians.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, the previous question and answer was related to seasonal workers, and I agree with the member's answer.

However, there is another side to the equation, and that is the seasonal industries. In my province agriculture, tourism and fisheries are all seasonal industries. Those are our main industries, and if they do not have that seasonal supply of workers, the businesses themselves are going to be in trouble.

I wonder if the member could comment on the impact the draconian employment insurance changes in this bill will have on businesses in those regions.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree completely with the Liberal member.

As I mentioned a little earlier, my region of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean is a beautiful region and tourism is very important there. As my Liberal colleague mentioned, every year, the tourism industry needs workers to keep the regional economy going.

What poses a problem is the fact that these people, who periodically need to turn to employment insurance, will be penalized outside of the tourist season. They will be forced to accept a job outside the riding or the region, otherwise their EI benefits will be cut off. This will put people in a very difficult position, because they may be forced to leave the seasonal tourism industry.

Indeed, the regional tourism industry is very strong, in both winter and summer, but as we all know, two different companies will not hire the same people. Once again, we see that the Conservative budget was poorly conceived and that the government is abandoning the regions.

Clearly the height of hypocrisy, the Conservatives' slogan during the election campaign was “our region in power”.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House this evening to outline the positive impact that the implementation of budget 2012-13, our government's plan for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity, would have on my riding of Sault Ste. Marie specifically and Canada as a whole.

First, I would be remiss if I did not rectify some of the misinformation that is coming from the opposition benches with regard to this budget. I would like to address an opposition day motion that claimed this government has failed to learn the painful lessons of Walkerton, which prove that cuts to essential government services, protecting the health and safety of Canadians, are reckless and can cause Canadians to lose their lives. This was speaking to food inspections and was an unfounded claim based on political fearmongering and not on the facts. These are the facts: 70% of all savings identified were found by increasing operational efficiency. Our government has maintained federal meat inspections and we have even hired 733 new food inspectors since 2005, 170 of whom were meat inspectors.

Our Conservative government refuses to follow in the footsteps of past governments to balance the budget by massively cutting health transfers to the provinces. Instead, we have embarked on a plan that continues to keep Canadians safe while maintaining a constant vigilance over governmental efficiencies.

It is in fact the opposition members who threaten the safety of Canadians by continually opposing our safe streets and communities act. They claim that the price is too high and that increasing spending on the justice system is not worth it. In response I can say only this: a Conservative government will not shy away from protecting Canadians from criminals.

That being said, these so-called cost increases have not occurred. The opposition erroneously claimed that we would have to build new prisons to house the sure influx of criminals at a tremendous cost to taxpayers. In fact, we have just announced the closure of two outdated prisons, and there are no new prisons planned because they are not required.

Another accusation put forward by the opposition is that while we may be working toward a balanced budget, we are doing it on the backs of Canadian seniors. Of course, they will not discuss, nor vote in favour of, all the great things the government has done for seniors, including lowering the GST twice, increasing the age credit amount by $2,000, introducing pension income splitting, doubling the pension income credit to $2,000, introducing the largest GIS increase in over 25 years, not to mention establishing the tax free savings account, which is particularly beneficial to seniors as they plan for their future.

We are also introducing the new pooled registered pension plans to better help workers save and build their retirement income. To suggest this government does not respect our seniors is preposterous. Our government has removed over 380,000 seniors from the tax rolls.

The opposition instead attacks the need to increase OAS from 65 to 67 years to ensure the sustainability of OAS for future seniors, including my children. To simply do nothing, which is exactly what the opposition wants to do, would be irresponsible. Canadians are living longer and healthier lives. This is not the 1970s when life expectancies were 69 for men and 76 for women. They are now 81 and 86 respectively. Longer lives are a blessing, but they come with the responsibility for government to ensure the pension system is available for future generations. If the OAS program stays on its present course, it will become unsustainable. Currently four people are working to support every senior at a cost to the system of $38 billion per year. Twenty years from now, two people will be working to support every senior, and the cost to support OAS at that time will be $108 billion, due to more seniors accessing OAS. This is the simple math.

The opposition parties would have none of this, though. They are more interested in political pandering than the future of Canada. They would rather buy votes with unsustainable programs than face the realities of an aging population.

I, however, have more faith in Canadians. I believe that they have looked to the future and they want a government that will take action to protect that future. We have not forced this policy on our senior citizens without adequate notice. Current seniors will not be impacted at all, nor will anybody who is now over the age of 54. The change in OAS will not begin to take effect until 2023 and will be phased in over a six-year period until 2029.

This Conservative government has taken a proactive step to ensure that OAS is available to future generations. We have done it with an eye to the future to ensure the long-term prosperity of all Canadians. We are working, and will continue to work, in order to build a better future for all Canadians. This is not just a government of today but a government of and for the future.

As the representative for Sault Ste. Marie, and having travelled extensively throughout northern Ontario, one of the largest concerns is skilled labour shortages. Even with a higher than average unemployment rate, our businesses still struggle to find skilled labour. I am proud of the reforms that Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism is bringing to our immigration system. These policy initiatives will allow foreign skilled workers to have streamlined access to our immigration system to help alleviate the skilled labour shortage and enable our businesses to prosper to the benefit of all Canadians.

As I campaigned in my riding of Sault Ste. Marie soliciting feedback on the next budget, the number one concern of two of my major manufacturing employers was the lack of skilled labour. I brought these concerns forward to the best Minister of Finance in the world. I am proud to say he listened. This is innovative thinking on the part of our government to deal with the problems of today. An effective immigration policy is a vital part of this government's overall plan to see the Canadian economy not only grow but thrive. If we keep on the present course, we will thrive and prosper.

Canada has weathered the storm of the economic recession better than any other G7 country with the creation of 760,000 net new jobs since 2009. We must not allow these facts to fill us with false pride. While we are strong, the world economy is still extremely fragile. In this global economy, we must continue to diversify and create wealth and stability by taking responsible steps to grow the economy without sacrificing the environment and the health and safety of Canadians. Budget 2012-13 does just that.

I am proud of the job that this government has done and is doing. I am especially proud of the fact that we will act upon constructive criticism, as demonstrated by our response to the Jenkins report in October 2011, which spoke to innovation being the wealth creator in the new economic order. I complete agree with Mr. Jenkins. Canadians live in a country rich in natural resources, but this alone will not simulate growth without innovation. It was innovation that gave Albertans, and by extension Canada, access to the wealth of the oil sands. It is innovation that will create hundreds of thousands of jobs in the mining sector. It will be innovation that creates wealth for future generations. With the importance of innovation being brought to light by the finding of the Jenkins report, this Conservative government took action. Within a few short months we organized a comprehensive strategy to invest $1.1 billion in research and development and made available $500 million for venture capital to leverage additional funds by the private sector.

Also in support of innovation in science and technology, our government is investing $37 million annually in Canada's granting councils, $110 million per year in the National Research Council to double support to small business through the industrial research assistance program, $95 million per year over three years and $40 million per year ongoing to make the Canadian innovation commercialization program permanent. There is more. There is $14 million provided to expand the industrial research and development internship program in order to place more PhD students into practical research and business.

I have seen the impact of government resources allocated to innovation in my local community. Algoma University has an entire department dedicated to the advancement and implementation of human knowledge. In Sault Ste. Marie we have made a concerted effort to invest in diversifying our economy through investment and R and D. The community, in partnership with FedNor, has supported an organization called the Sault Ste. Marie Innovation Centre. This program has attracted over $20 million to the local economy in projects, programs and investments. It has created 500 jobs in the private sector, developed research positions on health information and invasive species, and created an internationally awarded Community Geomatics Centre that now employs 20 staff and licenses technology to provide private sector companies—

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order, please.

The hon. member for Pontiac.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Madam Speaker, in my riding, industries are shutting down and it is very hard for people to find good jobs in the region they grew up in.

Communities are losing their young people, and now there are employment insurance measures in Bill C-38 that will make it even harder for people to stay in their home regions and find seasonal work.

What does the member have to say to those people?

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Madam Speaker, in my community, industries are not closing. This government is investing in low corporate tax policies which are allowing our businesses to be competitive in the global environment. Believe me, two of our major employers, Essar Steel Algoma which has 3,200 employees and Tenaris Tubes which has 700 employees, are supportive of our government's low-tax policies for job creation. That is what is important. This government is focusing on job creation and innovation. That is in fact what this budget focuses on: job creation and innovation and moving this great country forward.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I believe Algoma Steel is where it is today as a result of the guy who happens to be our interim leader, whom that party over there loves to attack. In a different time, it was that individual who saved the plant.

I happened to be in Sault Ste. Marie a couple of weeks ago, and there is not satisfaction up there about Bill C-38. They are very concerned about it, and they are concerned about it in their seasonal industries.

However, the point I want to make relates to the member's comments on seniors, where he is absolutely wrong. For people who are 54 years old and saving two cents on a cup of coffee with the GST cuts so they lose their pension of $30,000 over two years, if they are in a low-income group and have to go on provincial welfare, is that doing something for future seniors? I do not think so, and the reason the government is making that—

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order, please.

The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is so nice to respond to the member opposite when he is not yelling at us across the room during question period. He is absolutely one of the loudest members I have ever heard.

In terms of seniors in Sault Ste. Marie, I held public consultations prior to this budget. I went throughout my riding in Goulais River, Echo Bay and Bruce Mines. I presented in front of city council in Sault Ste. Marie. I offered opportunities for all members of my riding, including seniors, to have input on the budget. That input was brought forward to the Minister of Finance and it was listened to. I am very proud of our government, and I am just so proud to be a Conservative.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for my hon. friend from Sault Ste. Marie.

We listened across the way just a short while ago about how huge this budget is and the tremendous size. The member was holding up a book and said it was bigger than a telephone book. I wonder if the member might make a comment on that.

Also, I wonder if he could tell us a bit more about the innovation centres and the tremendous investment that this government, through this budget, would make and has made in the past through research and development, the engine that will drive this economy well into the future.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the budget we are dealing with now is, I believe, 495 pages, of which I have read every page. I am a CGA by trade and I kind of like numbers. However, this is small in comparison.

Budget 2011, Bill 1, the royal assent version had 880 pages. Bill C-13 in 2011, Bill 2, the royal assent version had 644 pages. Bill C-10, budget 2009, the royal assent version—

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I apologize, but I believe the record needs to be clear. I am not sure what 495-page document the member is speaking of, but the budget implementation bill has 425 pages.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I am sure the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie appreciates that, but clearing the record is usually not considered a point of order.

The hon. member is out of time for questions and comments, so we will move on. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today, I want to express the opposition of the people of Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert to the Conservatives' Trojan Horse bill.

Since the budget and this bill were introduced, I have received dozens, if not hundreds, of messages opposing Bill C-38 and asking me to pass along their messages. I had the opportunity to participate in consultations organized by the official opposition in Ottawa and Regina, where I heard from many groups, including the Canadian Medical Association, the Fédération interprofessionnelle de la santé du Québec, researchers, university professors and citizens, who are opposed to both the form and substance of the bill.

Let us talk about the form of Bill C-38. This bill is supposed to be a budget implementation bill, but it includes a number of reforms that were never mentioned in the latest budget. The government is using the budget implementation as a pretext for implementing its ill-advised reforms, for which it was never elected.

Many of my colleagues have pointed out that increasing the age of eligibility for old age security from 65 to 67 was not proposed to Canadians during the last election campaign. This government even promised not to touch pensions.

When the Minister of Finance said today that old age security and pensions are different, he was getting into semantics. Canadians did not have the opportunity to debate this issue during the election campaign, even though there were discussions between the minister and the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development before the last Parliament was dissolved. As such, this situation is an affront to democracy.

The other problem with this bill is its omnibus form. Including so many reforms that affect the environment and the fisheries and that will have such a great impact on communities without consulting those communities or experts is dangerous. Quickly throwing together an employment insurance reform is also problematic, particularly when the minister cannot name a single person or group that she consulted. These actions all constitute a significant abuse of democracy.

This bill will also affect women. The first thing that comes to mind is that women will be especially affected by the increase in the age of eligibility for old age security. Women depend on this program more than men, and this measure condemns thousands of seniors to a life of poverty.

It is estimated that this measure will triple the poverty rate among female seniors. This bill also amends the Employment Equity Act so that it no longer applies to federal contracts, which will affect a number of groups, including women. I will never understand the logic behind this measure. Do I understand correctly that profit is now more important than equality?

Such reasoning is shameful. We need to put people first. That is what motivates me to question the cuts that will have an impact on food safety. This bill will make a number of changes, including decreasing the number of food inspector positions to the same level as before the listeriosis crisis in 2008. What is more, this bill also amends the Seeds Act to give the president of the Canada 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.

Again, this part of the bill is problematic.

These changes were made without any studies and without any serious consultation. Food inspection and food safety for Canadians should be a sector where public interest comes first.

The statistics and the many witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Health are clear: countless diseases and deaths are linked to food. Sometimes, they result from direct poisoning—salmonella, for example—but it is mostly because of what the food contains.

Bill C-38 also includes changes whereby the nutritional value listed on the labels will no longer be verified. The government is not giving Canadians the tools and ability to make informed choices in terms of health.

Health is another theme of this bill. One of the aspects of the budget that has people talking—and that also shocked the provincial and territorial governments—is the unilateral decision by the federal government to reduce health transfers starting in 2016. The Prime Minister himself had promised, during the leaders debate, not to reduce health transfers below the current 6% level.

After 50 years of public health insurance, our system is facing a number of challenges. Now we have to deal with an epidemic of chronic illnesses and conditions that require follow-up. We have to ensure that our health care system meets the public's needs today.

The government's decision is equivalent to eliminating the deficit at the expense of the provinces and depriving them of $31 billion, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

What is more, this government is being inconsistent. On one hand, it is saying that we have to control health costs. On the other hand, it is refusing to legislate to reduce the level of sodium and trans fats in food and it is cutting food inspection and monitoring. Those are decisions that are going to cost our health care system billions of dollars in the long run.

Let us be serious and let us be consistent. We do not have to penalize the public and the patients in order to reduce health care expenses. Let us work on prevention. Let us regulate the amount of sodium and trans fats in food, in order to make it easier for people to get healthy food. Let us work with the provincial and territorial governments to make home care available and to make prescription drugs accessible for everyone. If we want to control health care costs, we must also ensure that the money is well managed and well spent.

That is why I am surprised that this government has decided that the Auditor General should no longer have the authority to audit the spending of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. We collectively invest a billion dollars every year in research, through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. That is a significant amount of money that the Auditor General should look at if he deems it necessary.

Lastly, increasing the age of eligibility for old age security will have consequences for health care. Dr. John Haggie, president of the Canadian Medical Association, said:

We are greatly concerned about the move to raise the age of eligibility for Old Age Security. Many seniors have low incomes and delaying this relatively modest payment by two years is certain to have a negative impact...Gnawing away at Canada’s social safety net will no doubt force hard choices on some of tomorrow’s seniors... the choice between whether to buy groceries or to buy their medicine...People who skip their meds, or lack a nutritious diet or enough heat in their homes, will be sicker. In the end, this will put a greater burden on our health care system.

This is a bad bill. It implements a budget that is bad for the Canadian economy and workers. It is bad for women. It is bad for democracy. It is mediocre for the health of Canadians and for the public health care system.

That is why I am going to vote against this bill. That is why it should have been split and examined more carefully.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I want to challenge my colleague on some of the facts in her speech.

She talked about health care “cuts” in the budget. The fact is that when we started, we transferred $19 billion to the provinces. With the agreements we have in place, that will be going up to $40 billion. According to something called mathematics, when a program is continually added to and augmented, that is not called a “cut”. I would like to ask her if she realizes that the 2004 accord does end in 2014, that each year there is going to be more and more money given to the provinces for their health care needs and that we have continued it with a minimum of 3% each year after that until the end of the agreement.

I would like her to explain to the House of Commons how this NDP math works. Clearly there is an augmentation every single year, and she is able to call that a “cut”. Could she explain that to the Canadian people?

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

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

We work together on the Standing Committee on Health. He knows very well that, starting in 2016, his government's increase will not be applied in the same way it is today.

As for the math, I would say to him that the Conservatives did the calculations and are not giving the real figures. Afterwards, there will be a difference because transfers will be based on GDP.

We know that our health care system is already fragile. If we factor in Canadians' longevity, the burden will be even greater. The government should think about that now instead of making cuts.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I recently attended an inaugural CARP meeting in Etobicoke, where over 300 people attended who were worried about OAS and health issues.

I would like to ask the member this: if the government really believes our aging population is a problem, why does it not recognize, for example, that dementia is an increasing concern in terms of health care and health economics? In 25 years, we will be looking at costs of $153 billion and someone being diagnosed once every two minutes. The reason for not acting, I think, is that developing and implementing a nationwide dementia plan would be a cost.

Does the government want to save money on the backs of Canadians to break its record deficit?

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Liberal colleague.

I had the opportunity to work with her on the Standing Committee on Health and I noticed that we have the same concerns about Canadians' health. I will repeat what she said at the end of her question.

Everyone knows that living longer leads to many problems, including dementia, as my colleague mentioned. Unfortunately, our colleagues opposite do not trust scientists or statistics. They simply apply their ideology.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my NDP colleague a question.

At the end of the year, the Minister of Finance decided, without the consensus of the provincial premiers, to radically change how health transfers are made. Federal transfers to the provinces will decrease. In fact, last year, the federal government paid 20% and the provinces paid 80% of every health care bill.

If we look at the figures, we clearly see that the federal contribution is dropping from 6% to 3%. In the end, the provinces will have to spend more on health care and, in some cases, people will have to pay, which will create a two-tier system in Canada. Personally, I like my free universal health care system.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks of that.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert has only 30 seconds remaining.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, who is also a member of the Standing Committee on Health, for his question. I really appreciate it.

His question demonstrates that the NDP is very concerned about the unilateral decision taken by the government without consulting the provinces and territories. As he said, our health care system is already in critical condition. It is on life support. The government's decision to reduce transfers could put the whole system in a coma—

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I have to interrupt the hon. member because her time is up. Resuming debate. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be here to discuss some of the highlights of Bill C-38, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act, and to speak against the NDP and other opposition amendments that are focused on delaying the passage of the bill.

As our economic record shows, Canada has performed well in the face of global economic uncertainty. Both the IMF and the OECD forecast that we will have among the strongest economic growth in the G7 over this year and the next.

This resilient performance did not happen by accident. It is the fruit of hard labour, solid economic principles, and consistent implementation of a plan that works: Canada's economic action plan.

Economic action plan 2012 sets out a comprehensive agenda to bolster Canada's fundamental strengths and addresses the important challenges confronting the economy over the long term. Our economy's strength provides an opportunity for our government to take significant actions today that will position Canada for a secure and prosperous future.

So far, Canada has had every reason to be proud of its successes. Since our government introduced the economic action plan in 2009 to respond to the global economic recession, Canada has created nearly 760,000 net new jobs, which is the best record in the G7.

Nevertheless, the global economy remains fragile, especially in Europe, and too many Canadians are still looking for work. That is why, in this uncertain economic climate, our government is staying focused on our low-tax plan for jobs and growth, a plan that is focused and works toward serving Canadians well. To this end, economic action plan 2012 focuses on the drivers of growth and job creation, innovation, investment, education skills and communities.

Through my remarks today, I would like to highlight some of the measures our government is proposing to keep the labour market healthy and prosperous.

My first point today will focus on employment insurance. EI is Canada's single largest labour market program. It provides temporary income replacement to help individuals and their families, as well as training and other labour market supports to help Canadians return to employment.

Bill C-38 makes targeted changes to make EI a more efficient program that promotes job creation, removes disincentives to work, supports unemployed Canadians and quickly connects Canadians to jobs that improve their quality of life and Canada's economy.

To outline these important measures, I will break this down into some details.

Our government is committed to helping Canadians who are looking for work. That is why our government will invest $74 million in a new national EI pilot project to ensure claimants are not discouraged from accepting work while still receiving EI benefits. This new pilot project, the working while on claim pilot project, will cut the current earnings clawback in half, to 50% of earnings, and apply it to all earnings while on claim. This will ensure EI claimants always benefit from accepting work by allowing them to keep more of what they earn while still on employment insurance.

Second, matching workers with available jobs is critical to supporting economic growth and productivity. Economic action plan 2012 will invest $21 million to enhance the content and timeliness of job and labour market information that is provided to Canadians looking for work. Along with providing relevant and timely job information, we will strengthen and clarify what is required of claimants who are receiving regular EI benefits and looking for work.

Third, our government recognizes that Canadians want stable and predictable EI premium rates and a transparent rate-setting mechanism. Our government would ensure predictability and stability in the EI premium rate. Over the next few years, we will limit annual rate increases to 5¢ until the EI operating account is balanced. Once the account has been returned to balance, the EI premium rate will be set annually on a seven-year break-even rate to ensure that EI premiums are no higher than needed to pay for the EI program. After the seven-year rate is set, annual adjustments to the rate will also be limited to 5¢.

Overall, these changes to employment insurance have been widely welcomed, especially from small business.

Indeed, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said:

Since the recession, skills and labour shortages have re-emerged as a major concern for Canada’s small business community. We believe the changes to defining suitable employment, based on how frequently EI is claimed, will help to remove disincentives to work and hopefully make it easier for small firms to find the people they need.

Another way we propose to help meet Canadian labour market needs is to solidify our immigration system. Economic action plan 2012 helps set the stage for strengthening our immigration system into one that is targeted, fast and efficient, and can sustain Canada's economic growth and deliver prosperity for the future. Canada needs immigrants who are ready, willing and able to fully integrate into Canada's labour market, particularly when there are essential skills shortages.

Economic action plan 2012 reinforces the government's commitment to move toward a more economically focused immigration system with the following three measures.

First, we will improve the responsiveness of Canada's immigration system by immediately directing our efforts toward addressing modern labour market realities.

Second, we will work with the provinces, territories and stakeholders to support further improvements to foreign credential recognition and to identify the next stages of target occupations beyond 2012. This will help more highly skilled newcomers find work related to their training, allowing them to quickly contribute to Canada's economy.

Third, we will continue to consider additional measures to strengthen and improve the temporary foreign workers program. This will help support our economic recovery and growth by better aligning the program with labour market demands.

Reaction to these changes has been very positive. In the words of the Canadian Construction Association:

The reforms promised by the budget to...immigration will ensure the country is well placed to take advantage of the more than $500 billion in major economic projects expected in Canada over the next ten years.

When it comes to creating a labour market that is strong and efficient, our government continues to take responsible action that meets our changing circumstances. Canadians gave us a strong mandate to stay focused on the economy and that is exactly what we have done and continue to do. We have a record to prove it.

Since July 2009, employment has increased by nearly 760,000 net new jobs, the strongest job growth among G7 countries over the economic recovery. More than 90% of these jobs created since July 2009 have been full-time positions and 80% are in high wage industries and in the private sector. While these are positive signs, Canada cannot rest on its record of success. We need to keep focused on the economy and on creating high quality jobs.

That is why I urge members of the House to pass Bill C-38 without delay because it will help create jobs for Canadians, and that is the right thing to do.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and it astounded me that not once did she mention anything about affordable housing. That is because there is nothing in the bill about affordable housing, which is really quite shocking.

I wonder if the parliamentary secretary is aware that one-third of existing social housing units are at risk of the expiry under the federal social housing operating agreement, which is a potential loss of 200,000 social housing units in Canada. As a result of her government's inaction and the fact that there is nothing in the budget about affordable housing or social housing, existing social housing is now at risk. Why did she not comment on that in her budget speech? Why is the government so blind to the whole question of housing and what is at risk?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this government has invested significantly in social housing and in ensuring that vulnerable Canadians have a roof over their heads. Over 615,000 individuals in this country have benefited from the economic action plan of this government.

I will be clear. We have taken action. We are providing housing and support for vulnerable people. The NDP vote against these initiatives every time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the fact that the working while on claim project is a worthwhile initiative and it is something we have supported. It was first announced in February 2005 by the then minister, Lucienne Robillard, and the Conservative government has increased the amount.

The member says that it is a new program. Could she outline the differences between the program that was announced in 2005 and this current program?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the working while on claim program is now a national program. The intent behind this program, as I mentioned in my speech, is to decrease the amount of clawback on employment insurance so that individuals who take a part-time job and are still able to claim EI are encouraged to continue to work. A number of individuals who take on part-time work then transfer into a full-time job. This is a way of creating the attachment of individual Canadians to the labour market. It is a great program. We are moving forward with it. I am delighted that it is in the budget.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague a question about certain Conservative ideology, a horrible Conservative radical idea that I mentioned earlier, called mathematics. We have been hearing the NDP members speak this evening to the cuts in the budget to health care.

I know the member is a very well-known surgeon and physician and is very supportive of our health care system. She works hard to promote the ideals that we as Canadians really do appreciate.

I know the member knows that the NDP's approach is to throw an indefinite amount of money at the health care system. However, we have a different approach. I am talking about accountability, sustainability and things like that. I wonder if the member could take a few moments to discuss the differences in the NDP, Liberal and our approach. As well, could the member throw something in about mathematics to explain that to the opposition members?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Oshawa for his great work on the health committee. I have had the opportunity to be at the health committee a few times.

The very simple math is that the Government of Canada has put forward, in previous budgets and in this budget, an escalator of 6%, which means that each year it is a cumulative effect. It is an increase each successive year. Following that, we will have a base of 3%, if not higher, to GDP. It is very simple math. It is just adding simple numbers. I would encourage the NDP to do just that.

The other thing that the government is doing that particularly benefits the health care field and something that I feel very strongly about is our support for innovation, science and technology. Whether it be the $37 million more for granting councils or the $60 million for high-class research at Genome Canada, these things are extremely important to ensuring we have the next set of great discoveries so that they can benefit Canadian patients.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise in the House today in support of Bill C-38 at report stage.

I must begin by expressing disappointment at the opposition's delay tactics which threaten the important measures contained in the bill. Instead of debating the issues that really matter to Canadians opposition members choose to engage in dire prophecies of doom and gloom and temper tantrums similar to ones by toddlers on a supermarket floor. Fortunately, Canadians can see past the opposition's melodrama.

As we heard again and again during the lengthiest consideration of a budget bill in more than 20 years, the legislation before us today focuses on what Canadians want. It would strengthen our economy, promote jobs and growth and ensure Canada's long-term prosperity. It would ensure the sustainability of programs not only for today, but also for future generations to come. For example, the changes to old age security would ensure that these benefits would remain sustainable and would be there when retired Canadians need them. The changes to employment insurance would make it easier for unemployed Canadians to get back to work in a more timely manner. Of course, we are also making changes to ensure balance when it comes to environmental regulations. Canadians want a government that balances the environment with our responsibility to promote jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

Crucial to a sound economy is law and order. In that regard, our government committed to getting tough with criminals when we were first elected. We have backed up that commitment with concrete actions. We have listened to the needs of victims, police officers and ordinary Canadians, all of whom told us that the time has come to take strong measures to deal with gangs and violent crimes.

We have taken steps to give law enforcement officials the resources and legislation they need to address crime and help ensure that law-abiding citizens are not afraid to walk down the streets. We have strengthened and modernized the Criminal Code. We have introduced measures to make sure that people convicted of a serious crime are dealt with appropriately.

Bill C-38 contains important measures which would help us do even more, specifically to combat guns, drugs and other contraband goods that often find their way onto our streets and into our school grounds due to smuggling operations by gangs and organized groups. It is those measures that I would like to speak about today.

In some cases these criminals use land ports of entry. In others, our shared waterways with the U.S. often provide a ready-made channel for criminals to smuggle these illegal products into Canada, threatening our homes, our families and our neighbours.

Many of us have heard the stories of high-powered boats skipping across the St. Lawrence or Great Lakes waterways with law enforcement agents in hot pursuit. The good news is that in some cases these criminals are stopped in their tracks, but the bad news is that in many cases they manage to get away. The criminals who smuggle illegal goods across our border with the U.S. can sometimes avoid capture and prosecution in one country by slipping across the international boundary. Law enforcement officials from the U.S. and Canada have to call off the chase at the border due to jurisdictional limitations, which means that illegal and dangerous goods can and do sometimes make their way into the hands of gangs, thugs and dangerous criminals.

Bill C-38 would help put an end to that. It would give law enforcement officials on both sides of the border the tools they need to do their jobs effectively, which is something our government has continued to do here in Canada since we were first elected in 2006.

The legislation before us today contains important measures that would ratify an agreement which our government signed with the U.S. to allow specially trained and designated Canadian and U.S. officers to work together on jointly crewed marine vessels, known as shiprider teams, in order to enforce the law on both sides of the international boundary line.

It spells out how these joint operations would be carried out, while also proposing amendments to the Customs Act, the Criminal Code, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

The measures in Bill C-38 stipulate that all shiprider operations would be conducted in a manner respecting the rights and freedoms protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and domestic privacy protections. They would also be done in a way that respects the domestic sovereignty of both nations and in accordance with the rule of law.

For example, in Canadian waters, operations would be subject to Canadian laws and procedures and conducted under the direction and control of Canadian law enforcement officers. The opposite would apply when ships are operating in U.S. waters.

The bottom line is this: By being able to enforce the law on both sides of the border, Canadian and U.S. law enforcement officers would no longer be faced with jurisdictional challenges associated with cross-border policing that are often exploited with criminal organizations. Shiprider officers would now be able to continue pursuit of criminals trying to evade arrest and prosecution by ducking across the border.

In addition, these operations would allow Canadian and U.S. law enforcement agencies to maximize existing border law enforcement resources. Instead of mirroring operations on either side of the border, this integrated approach would allow resources to be deployed most strategically along the border and leverage enforcement capacity, range and capability.

This is just one way in which Bill C-38 would help reduce cross-border crime while protecting our economy by cracking down on the smuggling of illegal contraband.

Criminals who smuggle illegal guns and drugs across our borders will have to face the consequences of their actions. They will be caught and they will be prosecuted.

In practical terms, we know from direct experience that shiprider is an effective border law enforcement tool. In 2007, operations in the Cornwall-Massena region in the east, and British Columbia-Washington border region in the west netted a large quantity of marijuana, over one million contraband cigarettes, six vessels and a huge amount of cash. However, it is some of the images that really tell the story and I will give a few examples.

Several years ago, the United States Coast Guard took a photo of a smuggler on the Great Lakes gesturing in contempt as he crossed the maritime border. The smuggler knew that the Coast Guard could do nothing to respond as he had managed to make it into Canadian waters with the help of a hand-held GPS. The Coast Guard could only monitor the situation. What a sad story.

Fast forward to 2007, and this time the Coast Guard, working with an RCMP officer aboard a shiprider vessel, set off in pursuit of a speedboat suspected of carrying drugs from the United States to Canada. When the pilot crossed the international boundary, he kept on going, knowing that officers could arrest him on either side of the border. The officers did not catch the boat on the water, but with the assistance of local police, they were able to intercept the perpetrator on shore yielding a haul of marijuana, more than one million cigarettes and a car.

In another instance, a fleeing boat stopped after it had crossed the Canadian border only to be approached by shiprider personnel. While no contraband was found on the vessel, the boat itself tested positive for cocaine residue and was promptly seized.

That same year, local police asked for shiprider assistance in a suspected case of child abduction. Because law enforcement officials on both sides of the border were able to co-operate, the abduction was averted and the child was returned unharmed.

The presence of shiprider operations in the area also helped to displace a considerable amount of smuggling to border ports of entry. The Canada Border Services Agency noted that there was a marked increase in arrests at land-based border crossings as a result of the shiprider program.

Considering all of the examples I gave, I urge my colleagues on the other side to support the bill so that we can implement these important measures.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, shiprider is an interesting program that actually came through the Senate, the unelected chamber, in terms of its analysis, and now it has been altered significantly in the budget bill. There was a lot of evidence of problems with the shiprider program and the problems it creates for tourism and trade.

I want to focus on why the government is cutting the Canada Border Services Agency inspections officers down to 1,100 officers. In fact the government is getting rid of one-quarter of the sniffer dog teams that are directly linked to eliminating gang operations as well as drug smuggling and gun operations. It is eliminating them through the budget. How does the government square the circle that the shiprider program can do those things?

I would invite my colleague to talk about the fact that in the United States there were a couple of interesting cases where U.S. customs officers actually killed American citizens. There was also the case in Niagara Falls four years ago where an American law enforcement agent pursued an American vehicle into Canada, killing a single mother on the streets of Niagara Falls.

Maybe my colleague could talk about those cases. It would be interesting to square the circle as to how the government will have accountability for those issues in this agreement.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the shiprider program has been operating on a pilot basis since 2005. As I mentioned in my speech, we have seen the positive outcomes. I gave the example of a child who was abducted and because of the shiprider program, the child was reunited with his parents.

This will promote economic benefits by protecting the border and cracking down on the smuggling of contraband.

As I mentioned, more than one million contraband cigarettes were confiscated in one year, and marijuana also. The target for all these drugs and contraband cigarettes ultimately is our youth, the young children in our schools.

I would ask my colleague to help us to implement these rules so that we can protect our youth from all these smugglers.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is with regard to EI. My colleague is on the human resources and skills development committee and is certainly well aware of any of the concerns that I have been able to express with regard to the changes to the EI legislation in the bill.

The minister has said a couple of times that we need more teeth in the legislation, more teeth in the regulations. It is tough to get teeth when we are sending everybody home. We are losing a lot of sets of teeth. Six hundred people have been sent home from the EI processing centres. That is 600 sets of teeth that are being taken out of the mix.

There are more intrusive regulations coming forward, such as shaking down 58-year-old chambermaids as to whether or not they would take a job within an hour's drive and whether it is a suitable job.

The minister has not really overwhelmed anybody with her ability to handle the department.

Is my colleague confident that these new regulations can actually serve any real purpose? Is there enough bodies left in HRDC to actually carry out--

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I will stop the hon. member there. There are only 30 seconds left for the member for Calgary Northeast.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let me tell my colleague my view about EI. I strongly believe that the EI program was created for the people who lose their jobs, unfortunately, and are unable to find a suitable job to replace the lost job. It is not for the people who simply qualify for the program and then use the program as an entitlement, without looking for a replacement job or a reasonably suitable job. That is what I would suggest to my colleague.

To answer the other part of his question, this government believes in effectiveness. We believe that the single largest labour market program should be effective when we send more and more people back to work, not having more and more people sitting and waiting for a cheque from the government.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin on a general note, for Canadians who might be watching or following this debate, to try to perhaps slow down the pace of the detail being presented on all sides of the House and remind Canadians what is at stake here.

What are we talking about this evening? Why have so many amendments been produced and presented for voting very shortly? Why is all this kerfuffle happening about this budget bill?

For everyday Canadians who are busy leading just-in-time lives, raising their kids, paying their mortgages or rent and looking after loved ones, this is very complicated, but there are some simple facts that are worthy of communication for them this evening.

First, this budget document is 425 pages in length, has 753 clauses and is changing or doing away with 70 different laws that exist today in Canada. Here are a few of the things it would do in unprecedented fashion, because it is not an economic document and it is certainly not an economic transformative plan, as the minister would have us believe.

It would rewrite Canada's environmental laws, 40 years in the making. In this draft budget, they are gone.

It would break the Conservative government's election promise by raising the age to qualify for the old age supplement from 65 to 67 years of age. Does any Canadian remember hearing that in the last election campaign? Did the government run on that platform?

It would create uncertainty for our seasonal industries with changes to employment insurance, something I will come back to momentarily.

It would hurt Canada's international brand by tearing up 100,000 immigration applications with the stroke of a pen. The 100,000 human beings waiting for their immigration applications to be processed would now be out of luck.

It would impose the Conservatives' unilateral decision to reduce health care transfer payments to the provinces and territories. Did they run on that platform? No. Did they consult or negotiate with the provinces? No.

In this bill they are targeting charities that they disagree with. Did they run on that in their platform?

They are eliminating groups such as the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, Rights and Democracy and the National Council of Welfare, all groups the Conservatives disagree with. Did they run on those promises? No.

They would be reducing the Auditor General's oversight on a number of government agencies, including the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Northern Pipeline Agency. How can that be a good thing?

It is reducing democratic oversight of our spy agency, CSIS, by abolishing the Office of the Inspector General.

It would repeal the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, eliminate a number of the government's reporting requirements on climate change and public service jobs and make changes to parole hearings. Every expert who testified warned that changes to parole hearings are unconstitutional.

In short, it is anti-democratic. They are using a single omnibus budget bill to limit debate and ram these unrelated measures through Parliament. That is what this debate is about, for Canadians who are watching.

However, it is no surprise for those of us who lived through the first incarnation of the republican government in Ontario, which has ended up here. That is because the technique that was perfected in Ontario to create omnibus bills began under former premier Mike Harris and was perfected by our present-day Minister of Finance.

Let us focus on the old age supplement as an important issue for a moment. The Conservatives are breaking their election promise, as I said, by raising the age for OAS from 65 to 67. They are ignoring the advice of the OECD, Canada's chief actuarial officer, the Parliamentary Budget Officer and even the government's own experts, who have all agreed and all testified that change is not necessary because our OAS program is already sustainable. This would hurt rural Canadians, and single women in particular, who disproportionately depend on OAS and GIS.

It also hurts our physical labourers who cannot continue working. Forty percent of our OAS recipients earn less than $20,000 a year, and more than half earn less than $25,000 a year. In my riding of Ottawa South, it is no different.

This change would hurt Canada's most vulnerable seniors the hardest. It is just not right; our seniors, who have invested so much in our country, need our support now more than ever.

Let us turn to the changes under employment insurance. What have we heard? We did not hear how these changes will help solve skilled labour shortages. We did not hear how many of the current 250,000 job openings would be filled because of these changes. We did not hear how these changes will assist the 1.4 million Canadians who are out of work. We did not hear that Canadians had been consulted about these changes. We did not hear how they will help communities and workers who only have seasonal industries to foster more full-time industries.

These changes brand those who require EI during recurring periods of no-fault job loss as “repeat offenders”, in the government's language. Can members imagine thatv if people are on in EI in Canada, they are repeat offenders?

Those people had better watch out. The changes would force them to take a 30% pay cut in a lower-skill job outside of their area of training. The changes would force people to take jobs further away from home, thereby incurring higher costs for a low-skill job that pays less. Boy, that makes sense in the 21st century.

It is policy created on the fly. The Conservatives did not have a plan or a rationale for the changes. They had no information, no facts, no analysis, just a belief that EI claimants are lazy and abuse the system.

They have a desire to penalize seasonal workers and industries. It is reminiscent of the member for Ottawa West—Nepean's press conference in Ontario several years ago, when as a minister in the Harris regime he took a box of syringes, dumped them onto the floor in front of the cameras and went on to explain that the reason the government was pushing Workfare so hard was that all welfare recipients in Ontario were shooting their cheques up their arms. That is the kind of character at play here, a character that is still there.

If members do not take my word for it, let us listen to what the media has to say about the budget.

The Globe and Mail said, “The budget bill contains too much for adequate consideration by Parliament.”

The Halifax Chronicle Herald called it “a steamroller of sweeping change, from the streamlining of environmental regulations to the reform of old age security and EI”, and called it “anti-democratic”. The paper stated that “the monster budget bill introduced last week is an omnibus bill on steroids” and went on to say, “It's also nonsense to pretend one debate, one committee review and one vote will allow Parliament to competently examine this legal spaghetti.”

The Toronto Star said, “This reeks of hypocrisy.” It also stated:

This is political sleight-of-hand and message control, and it appears to be an accelerating trend. These shabby tactics keep Parliament in the dark, swamp MPs with so much legislation that they can't absorb it all, and hobble scrutiny. This is not good, accountable, transparent government. It is not what [the Prime Minister] promised to deliver.

The Montreal Gazette stated, in speaking of Bill C-38, “If more Canadians understood it, they would be horrified by the lack of time allotted to its consideration.”

The Winnipeg Free Press stated:

Under the...Conservatives, however, parliamentary committees, like Parliament itself, are mere toys of the party in power, routinely gagged the moment an opposition MP moves a motion.

We have certainly seen that behaviour.

The Ottawa Citizen asked this simple question: “What's the rush?”

It goes on and on.

The National Post stated:

As you remove the outer layers of the bill, you discover potentially far-reaching policy shifts that have no business being in any budget, far less being scrutinized by the finance committee.

Perhaps to close, my favourite, published just some hours ago at 6:20 p.m. this afternoon, from Postmedia:

Their primary justification for the omnibus bill—that all its measures together form an integrated, coherent vision and plan of economic transformation—is demonstrably nonsense.... How can reforms to the Parks Canada Agencies Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the elimination of the office of the inspector general for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service possibly be interpreted as economic?

It goes on to conclude, asking this question:

Why bother wasting time with the bothersome business of committee review and public debate? ...It would be far more efficient, certainly cheaper, for the prime minister to rule by decree.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Ottawa South's speech was very comprehensive and important.

I am unhappy with the fact that this bill is continually described as though it will do great things for jobs and the economy, while we have failed as parliamentarians to examine the ways in which Bill C-38 is a threat to jobs and our economy.

I am taken by the fact that many Conservative members have spoken tonight about the importance of competitiveness, research and development, and innovation, yet all the best studies in the world on competitiveness—I mentioned, for example, Michael Porter at Harvard University—have said that when the rigour of environmental regulations is reduced, the result is less competitiveness and fewer innovations.

This is the one area where Canada is really lagging, R and D and innovation. Would my hon. friend comment on whether he agrees with me that this so-called budget implementation bill will actually undermine Canada's competitiveness and reduce our ability to come up with the research and innovation to stay ahead?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is spot on.

In the 21st century, we should not be racing to compete with jurisdictions that can dig up minerals, cut forests, harvest fish and move into the natural resources industry that Canada used to excel at in the early 20th century. This is not Canada's role for the future.

Where is the investment and venture capital? Why are we discussing new start-ups for Canada? Why is the Sustainable Development Technology foundation being robbed of capital to capitalize and partner with our private sector to give rise to new green technologies?

The race is on for energy efficiency all over the planet. Every jurisdiction knows this. Canada should be leading this race, but unfortunately I do not think the Prime Minister has a pair of running shoes.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member gave a very good speech about this terrible budget bill.

I do not know about the member's community, but in my community I know there is a growing sense that this budget bill creates an even bigger divide in our country. It increases the gap of inequality.

I have been focusing some of my remarks tonight on housing, because this bill does not mention housing anywhere. We have a housing crisis, whether it is in Ottawa, Toronto or Vancouver. Many communities are facing this housing crisis.

I would like to ask the member if he could reflect on that and whether he too is dealing with some of the critical issues around affordable housing here in the city of Ottawa?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, we are, right here in this jurisdiction, in the shadow of the Peace Tower.

There is a desperate need for housing. It is interesting to reflect back and remember that one of the first acts of the government, upon forming a minority government, was to do away with our housing department. It did away with it with one stroke of a pen.

Now where are we? Is there a national housing strategy? Are we dealing with some of the homelessness crises? Are we connecting the dots between homelessness and mental health issues and challenges? Are we connecting the dots with substance abuse? No, we are not.

This is a step back for Canada. This is a focus on harvesting the low-hanging fruit of natural resources as quickly as we can and sell as much fossil fuel as we can and as much mineral as we can.

We are not opposed to those extractive industries—do not get me wrong—but it is a race to sell as much as we can and make as much money as we can. In my estimation, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister can stand up in three years' time and say, “Canadians, we know we have undermined the 21st century economy, but have we got a tax cut for you.”

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House this evening to talk to such an important bill, a bill that I believe will transform our country into greater prosperity and greater things to come for years and years ahead.

The first topic I will discuss this evening is on the proposed changes to the Fisheries Act through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, specifically what is relevant to rural Canada, in my case rural Ontario, and a long-outstanding issue long before I was elected to the House. The issue deals with municipal drains and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' responsibility and actions inside that area.

There could be as many people watching CPAC tonight as there are members in the House. It could be a limited audience, but we will just imagine we are getting big ratings tonight.

The issue regarding municipal drains arises when farmers want to drain an area. It could be a low lying area that is wet and they need to drain this to get a higher yield for their crop production. They will work with the municipality and with a group of farmers and they will create a municipal drain of an appropriate length to connect into a stream or river or whatever will work to get the water into the waterway. It never was a fish habitat, it never had been a fish habitat. However, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans deems it to be a fish habitat. Not only that, believe it or not, Transport Canada at one time deemed it to be, in addition to a fish habitat, a navigable water. This has posed tremendous issues, not only for getting it built but, as time moves on, these municipal drains need to be dug out and cleaned out to ensure they operate in a proper manner and format.

Therefore, the proposed changes to the Fisheries Act in this budget bill will really solve a lot of problems for rural Canadians and especially rural Canadians who are farmers. This will be a tremendous benefit. We have all heard stories in the media about how this act has been applied incorrectly time and time again at a direct cost to the farmer.

In my riding, there is a number of large rivers that flow through into Lake Huron. There are the Saugeen River north of where I live, the Maitland River and the Bayfield River. What many people may not understand is that years ago the Department of Fisheries and Oceans made an agreement with the conservation authorities that basically allowed them to do about 95% of the work and, on rare occasions, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was actually brought in. The changes that the opposition members are so concerned and fearful about are, by and large in most areas of Canada, being conducted. At the very end, the biologists from DFO will come in and take a look at the project and carry on. When the project is completed, they will sign off.

Some of the issues around this specifically, where this was inefficient and caused tremendous delays, concerned the biologists not being from the area and not having knowledge of the particular river, creek or farm the way somebody from the conservation authority would have. Someone who lives and works in the area knows the farmers, the people who work for the municipality and knows the engineering firms and makes it all happen. This will be a tremendous improvement.

Then, when we consider the fact that there is also the issue around where the province comes in, the Ministry of Natural Resources, and how it deals with species at risk. Is it terrestrial, meaning is it on land or is it on water? Once we have that, we have multiple jurisdictions dealing with an issue that these conservation authorities can handle quite aptly. Therefore, that will be a great change.

Ray Orb is the vice-president of Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities. I am from Ontario, but to get a different flavour from western Canada, I thought I would bring his comments in. This is from the May 28 subcommittee meeting. The association represents 296 rural municipalities in Saskatchewan and acts as the common voice. Members do not have to think it is just him, this is the voice of 296 different municipalities that are not too far different than my own.

Mr. Orb applauded the federal government for the changes to the Fisheries Act that were announced in April by federal Minister of Fisheries, Keith Ashfield. He said, “The changes to the act provide the long-awaited distinction between—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a small but not unimportant point of order. I believe the hon. member misspoke when he named the current Minister of Fisheries by name.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was quoting somebody else's statement, but I digress.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I did not catch it, but I would remind the hon. member for Huron—Bruce that even when quoting from other documents or articles, members are still not supposed to use proper names.

I will give the floor back to the hon. member for Huron—Bruce.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure the member for Avalon is paying attention.

To continue with what Mr. Orb said:

—vital Canadian waterways that support fish populations and smaller bodies of water that do not house fish. It is our understanding that the amendments to the Fisheries Act will focus protection rules on significant threats to fish and will set clear standards for routine projects concerning smaller fish-free water bodies.

In addition he said:

Currently the Fisheries Act applies the same protection to rivers and streams as municipal drains and farmers' irrigation canals. This adds unnecessary costs and extended timelines to routine municipal road construction projects....For example, in 2011, in my municipality, we were involved with a culvert replacement project in a non-fish-bearing area. DFO required us to attain a permit, which caused a time delay, and the overall cost was increased significantly.

I can attest to this personally. My father-in-law works for a municipality as a road foreman and he says that when it is time to do a culvert, he pulls out a book about five inches thick. That is the first thing he does before he starts to go through the process of replacing a municipal culvert that may not even have any water in it or ever had any water in it.

This is a change. I know the Liberals have a hard time understanding this change because they no longer have any rural members. They had 13 years to get it right, but they continuously got it wrong. We are here to ensure we get it right for all Canadians.

Another important issue—

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There are three rural members from the Liberal Party right here. How could the member even say that?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I see the member for Malpeque is paying attention. He has passed the test.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just think the member for Malpeque should get a life.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I did not hear that. There is quite a lot of noise going back and forth. It would be easy for the Speaker to pick up on these things if there was less of that.

I will give the floor back to the hon. member for Huron—Bruce who has two minutes left to conclude his remarks.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I could talk for hours on the benefits of the bill.

One other area I would like to touch on briefly while I do have time is competitiveness and the opportunities for Ontarians in the budget. One example I would like to read to the House comes from Terry Toner, who represents the Canadian Electricity Association. He said, “Currently projects are stuck in a system with 40 federal departments and agencies involved”. He also said, “regulatory approval processes, combined with construction periods, have totalled more than 10 years from project initiation to grid connection”.

What does that mean? For Ontarians, yes, we have agriculture, but we also have manufacturing and a great industrial base still. Time and time again we hear at auto caucus from members of Ford, GM, whoever, that we are not competitive on electricity.

I will give credit to Dalton McGuinty. In eight years he has raised our electricity rates to astronomical levels that now no longer make us competitive. If that was his goal, he has succeeded. However, as far as creating jobs and being competitive, he has failed. Part of the reason is that we have to become more competitive with our electricity rates because we are really missing the boat. I believe, once again, it is the federal government helping Ontario out, as we always are good friends and neighbours to the province of Ontario.

I have plenty of quotes, too many to get them all through in a minute or two. I wish I had more time. They deal with the environmental assessment, especially when we look at the opportunities in northern Ontario with the ring of fire. It will become vitally important that we get these assessments done right and on time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member across about part 3, responsible resource development.

The object in section 4(f) is to ensure that an environmental assessment is completed in a timely manner. Section 5(c) is with respect to aboriginal peoples. Under section 14(4), there are four federal authorities. Under section 24, the public is provided with the opportunity to participate. However, the thing that interests me the most and the conflict that I see here in the future is that under section 38, the review plan, there is a time limit of 24 months and we see that time limit in other parts of part 3.

How will the government deal with section 35 of the Constitution and the time limits that are proposed? How will it deal with the stake of the honour of the Crown in section 35 of the Constitution Act?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me tell members what Scott Vaughan, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, said when he talked about environmental screenings. He said that 99% of environmental assessments were screening levels and agreed that allocating resources to larger environmental projects would be a good use of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act's resources.

In addition, here is what Denise Carpenter from the Canadian Nuclear Association said, and I should add that Bruce Power is in my riding. She said, “reduced overlap and duplication will strengthen the environmental protection. Limiting one project to one review is not only more efficient, it's more cost-effective”.

I know the NDP and the Liberals have a hard time understanding cost-efficient and effective, but believe me, they work.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member a question. He talked about all the fisheries policies that this budget entailed. One of the things that he forgot to mention was the number of fisheries jobs that the government was taking out of Newfoundland and Labrador and out of St. John's and moving them to Fredericton, of all places.

[An hon. member]

Where?

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

To Fredericton, the minister's riding. I have a simple question for the member. Could the member can tell me how many wharves and fisheries offices are in Fredericton? How many wharves are in Fredericton?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question shows the difference between the way we look at it, in the Conservative Party, and the glass half empty attitude they have in the Liberal Party.

One of my best friends is from his province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I can tell him that there are so many opportunities for jobs in Newfoundland. If he would get on board—

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

How many ports?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

The member has been talking over there. Let me talk now.

The member should come along with us and let us work with the environmental assessments and get some people from Newfoundland working. There are great mining jobs. There are great opportunities. All he has to do is get onboard and he can go back to his riding and tell his constituents what he is doing.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I will just ask for a bit of order. I know it is late at night, but we should still try to allow the members answering the question to do so in a bit of peace and quiet.

The hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Essex.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the member. He is right on target. I can tell he has done his homework. I know what message he is trying to bring. I know oftentimes it does not seem to click with the other side.

I want to ask him another question. This is something I think is vitally important when we talk about these environmental assessments, the importance of the reserves we have of gas and oil in our country and why it is so important for us to develop those important resources.

Why would those regulations make a difference as to how our country could grow and how we could generate wealth in those areas?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, he is probably one of the best small businessman in the House today.

I mention again competitiveness because I know the other side does not get it. We are competing with countries like Australia and Brazil, countries that are making environmental assessments happen in six months' time. Every minute that we cannot compete with these other countries, capital will leave our country, go elsewhere and never return.

It is more important now than ever before that we get it done one time and get it done right. Let us get the investments to Canada. Let us make it happen in Avalon.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-38 is so huge that the media have called it a mammoth bill. For those who may never have seen one, because you cannot just go to a zoo and see a mammoth, elephants are descended from mammoths, but mammoths are larger, so when the media called this a mammoth bill, the analogy was clear. As my former colleague from Montcalm would say, this is a thick document.

To further educate everyone, I should explain that mammoths have disappeared. We would like Bill C-38 to do the same. Unfortunately, we are stuck with this bill because the government has a majority, but this is not the first time the Conservative government has handed us a poison pill in one of its implementation bills. It did that even when it had a minority.

We all remember the crisis that erupted when the government made the not-so-subtle decision to eliminate funding for political parties in an implementation bill, thinking that the measure would slip through unnoticed. It also decided to start messing around with pay equity and remove the right to strike from certain officers and public servants. That did not happen because the majority, which was the opposition, decided that it was ready to topple the government and trigger an election.

Refusing to back down, and playing cheap partisan politics, the Conservative government decided to prorogue Parliament to prevent an election. That is how it operates. That is how it does business. When things are not going its way, it behaves utterly undemocratically. That is what it did once. Other times, it decided to trigger elections even though the House had passed a law to set fixed election dates.

A whole bunch of measures were included in this bill. The Conservatives are taking advantage of their majority, since they know they can pass the bill despite challenges by the opposition and the public. The government wants to muzzle not only the opposition, but also all organizations and all individuals who might be affected by Bill C-38. The government put things in this bill that were not previously announced. I heard some other members earlier giving a list of these things. For instance, Bill C-38 includes a complete overhaul of employment insurance.

Everyone was surprised, because never, ever—not in the election campaign or since coming to power in 2006—had the government even suggested that it would make any such changes that would penalize the regions in particular. I know that Quebec and the Atlantic provinces will be especially hard hit by this reform. Many seasonal workers back home will of course suffer as a result of this new reform, which this government should have presented in a separate bill.

That is also what the government should have done for many other measures that were included in this bill without any forewarning. Another example is adding two years to the retirement age for seniors. I heard a Conservative member rhyming off a bunch of quotations. Well, I have some quotations of my own, including one from the Fédération de l'Âge d'Or du Québec, which said that this government is behaving like a dictator and abandoning seniors with this decision to increase the retirement age in Bill C-38. I quote:

Not only is there a complete lack of measures to improve the quality of life of seniors, but the government is restructuring programs in a way that will jeopardize the future for generations of seniors to come.

That is what we heard in response to this change, which the Conservatives also had not announced during the election campaign. They also want to change the Bank Act. We have heard about this. The Bloc Québécois has raised this issue here in the House. We are not the only ones. This also caused a stir in Quebec City, when the finance minister unilaterally decided to disregard Quebec's Consumer Protection Act, saying that banks fall under federal jurisdiction.

However, he forgot to mention that contracts fall under Quebec's jurisdiction, as does the province's Consumer Protection Act. That is simply telling the banks that they can now do whatever they want in the province and there is no longer any legislation that applies. The Quebec justice minister, Mr. Fournier, even wrote a letter to the Minister of Finance of Canada, in which he said:

...we wish to inform you of our concerns with respect to your proposal. The federal Parliament cannot decide in a peremptory manner that provincial laws do not apply to a given sector.

The rejection of Mr. Fournier's arguments will undoubtedly make him want to push a little harder for a sovereign Quebec, given that he himself said that he no longer saw himself as part of today's Canada as a result of the Conservative government's decisions.

We do not want to achieve our own country in this way, because we want to build a country with honour and enthusiasm, as someone already said, and not because the government knocks us on the head. Nevertheless, more and more people are thinking about it because this government is sweeping away all Quebec's values.

The same principle applies to food inspection. The budget implementation bill contains changes to food inspection. This government does not seem to have learned any lessons from the listeriosis crisis. I was a member of the agriculture sub-committee established to identify the problems that unfortunately caused the death of 22 people at the time. Even today, the government is knowingly playing with people's health and safety, which defies all logic.

What the government wants to do is limit debate as much as possible; all these time allocations have made that clear. It is the same for Bill C-38.

Although the general public has been warned by the opposition parties in the House, it does not change the fact that we are continuing to discover many new measures in this document, which is over 400 pages long. These measures are going to affect the public, perhaps not right away in some cases, but certainly within a short enough period that the government will hear a lot about it during the next election.

Although the government did not want to talk about the measures it was going to insidiously add to Bill C-38, I am certain that it is going to get an earful about them from Canadians between now and 2015, when the next election is held. Some aspects of this bill are completely unacceptable, particularly those that affect the environment.

For instance, we know that division 1 of part 3 enacts a whole new piece of legislation on environmental protection, whose purpose is to expedite the approval of large projects, particularly those involving oil sands exploitation. The same is true of division 2 of part 3, which amends the National Energy Board Act in order to allow the Governor in Council, or cabinet, to decide whether a certificate should be issued for any large pipeline projects.

What the government wants now is clear: it wants as few environmental assessments as possible in order to fast-track these large projects, which are often harmful to the environment, as much as possible.

These projects can be implemented, but things must be done right. An assessment must be conducted using the strictest possible standards. If the project meets those standards, then it can be implemented.

Finally, the government wants to help the large oil companies—as though they need any more help—and the gas companies by approving all their projects as quickly as possible.

This example pertains to the environment. I do not need to reiterate—it has been said often enough—that this bill puts an end to the Kyoto protocol once and for all. I am wondering what this is doing in a budget implementation bill.

However, we have been asked many times, during questions and comments, what is good about the budget implementation bill.

The government listened to the Bloc Québécois when it asked that the Governor General be required to pay income tax, just like all Canadians and Quebeckers, except the Governor General's salary was doubled by the Conservative government. That is rather ironic.

I have not done the exact calculations. It is not easy, because in addition to his salary, he receives other compensation, but at the end of the day, he will earn more money after being taxed than if we had kept things as is. That is rather ironic on the part of the Conservative government. I imagine they gave this gift to the Governor General in celebration of the Queen's jubilee.

Nevertheless, it is a symbolic gain: The Governor General of Canada will finally pay taxes.

It is no surprise that for these reasons, the Bloc Québécois will vote against Bill C-38. We will obviously be here tomorrow to try to make this government listen to reason, to make it pass certain amendments that would shorten this mammoth bill a bit. Nevertheless, what will remain is a massive, unacceptable bill.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Quebec for his speech.

In my riding, a number of seniors must cut some of their essential needs, such as medication and food, to be able to pay for housing. We also know that because of this Conservative government, some seniors living in poverty will have to wait another two years for the provincial program that gives benefits to the poor.

I would like to hear what the hon. member thinks about how this government is downloading program costs onto the provinces, including Quebec, for example with respect to prisons.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite right. That is exactly what is happening with the increase in the age of retirement eligibility. Those who are most vulnerable will be affected. What will happen to these people when they are not entitled to receive their old age pension or guaranteed income supplement for an extra two years? They will have to turn to social assistance. Clearly, this is downloading once again.

Personally, I think it is appalling not only that Quebec and the provinces will be stuck footing the bill, but also that seniors will be the ones most affected by these measures, while this government is spending millions of dollars. For instance, it has spent millions of dollars this year to celebrate the monarchy and to commemorate the War of 1812, which no one remembers or cares about. It has spent huge amounts of money. Maybe those millions of dollars are symbolic.

This government's political priorities are rather surprising. Consider, for example, the purchase of fighter jets at a cost of billions of dollars. We will probably never see them fly. At least I hope not, because that aircraft's communication system looks really complicated and it seems as though it is really hard to find a plane that meets Canada's needs. So it amounts to utterly useless spending compared to all the cuts this government is making, particularly at the expense of our most vulnerable seniors.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech. It is too bad he is a sovereignist, but I guess we all have our faults.

He represents a riding that has a lot of agriculture. One important point about a catch-all bill like this one is that many things are happening at once. Members have talked about employment insurance and food inspection.

I would like my colleague to use this opportunity to talk about what is happening in his riding and what the implementation of this bill really means for his region.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

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

It is not the first time he has heard sovereignists make very good speeches in this place, nor will it be the last time. The next election is pretty far off, and I will leave it at that.

As I mentioned in my speech, in ridings such as mine, all these changes to employment insurance will surely affect a number of industries. In my riding, as in several regions of Quebec and Canada, the tourist season lasts a certain amount of time. Specialized workers hold down seasonal jobs, and they will be harmed by the government's decision to change employment insurance.

With regard to agriculture, the changes to employment insurance will create other problems. For example, in my riding, there are many cranberry operations. Producers hire many foreign workers. The government has asked that employers hire as few foreign workers as possible and instead hire more local people to work on the cranberry farms. However, it will be very difficult to find workers with the necessary skills. We can already sense that farmers will have problems.

This is also the case for produce growers in my riding and throughout Quebec. They are already very worried about losing their workers and having to train people who, in any event, will probably quickly look for work elsewhere. In many cases, it will be difficult to harvest the crops.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favour of Bill C-38, jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act and against the NDP and opposition attempts to delay it with their multiple amendments to defeat it. While the NDP and Liberals want to engage in partisan games to delay Bill C-38, I know as an eastern Canadian the importance of economic action plan 2012 and its commitment to responsible resource development.

I am proud of the work that has been done by our Conservative government to better and more effectively contribute to our economic growth and job creation in a sustainable, responsible way now and for future generations.

In today's economy, it is paramount to ensure that Canada's great natural resources, including the fisheries, be proactively managed to ensure that we are globally competitive and that we remain competitive for years to come. I would like to focus on the fisheries modernizations contained in the bill and dispel some of the concerns raised by the opposition to delay today's act. It is time to bring Canada's fisheries protection into the 21st century. We are proposing changes to the Fisheries Act that would enable us to make real tangible strides toward managing threats to Canada's recreational, commercial and aboriginal fisheries for the benefit of all Canadians.

The changes to the Fisheries Act would protect the productivity of Canada's fisheries while providing much needed clarity to Canadians by, first, focusing the government's protection efforts on commercial, recreational and aboriginal fisheries; second, drawing a distinction between the vital waterways that support Canada's fisheries and unproductive bodies of water; and third, identifying and managing real threats to the fisheries, including direct impacts to fish habitat destruction and aquatic invasive species.

Many have welcomed these amendments to the Fisheries Act and our larger commitment to responsible resource development. In my own riding of Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, the mayor of Colchester recently wrote me supporting the changes we are making to this act so that they can better support different development projects within the riding, such as main culverts, road creation and managing the fisheries resources within that municipality. They are strong supporters of this legislation.

I would like to take the time to address the positive changes in today's act related to the Fisheries Act in more detail.

First, the proposed changes to the Fisheries Act include a suite of tools that would help protect Canada's fisheries. However, like all great ideas, the opposition has chosen to ignore these. These include the establishment of ecologically sensitive areas, such as critical spawning habitat for salmon and other species. If any activities are proposed within these areas, proponents would be required to submit plans for review. The minister could then specify the protection requirements for these areas.

Other tools to protect fisheries include enhanced compliance and enforcement tools such as enforceable conditions of authorizations, the obligation for proponents to notify government officials in the event of serious harm to fisheries and significant penalties that are aligned with the Environmental Enforcement Act.

With respect to the word “habitat”, there is a new prohibition in the legislation which states that it is prohibited for any person to undertake works, undertakings, or activities that result in serious harm to fish that are part of the commercial, recreational or aboriginal fisheries or to fish that support these fisheries. “Serious harm” would be defined as the “death of fish or any permanent alteration to or destruction of fish habitat”.

Our government recognizes that healthy and productive fish habitat is essential in order to sustain fish that contribute to or are a part of a commercial, recreational or aboriginal fishery. We are serious about focusing our resources on managing the threats to these important fisheries which includes fish habitat.

Protecting commercial, recreational and aboriginal fisheries requires protecting their habitat over a large geographic scale. Our focus is to manage threats to commercial, recreational and aboriginal fisheries to ensure that they are available for future generations of Canadians, looking at today and years down the road, something the opposition's “living for today” mindset is unfamiliar with.

It is also important to note that the prohibition also refers to protecting the fish that support these fisheries so that many other fish species would remain protected.

Conservation groups have also indicated that we are currently using our resources ineffectively and that there are better ways to protect important wetlands, rivers, lakes and oceans.

The message we received from them was that the laws are indiscriminate and mean that all bodies of water, whether fish live there or not, are subject to the same rules and evaluation, regardless of size, environment or contribution to a fishery.

The proposed changes to the Fisheries Act address these issues by focusing our efforts on fisheries of commercial, recreational and aboriginal importance. Over the course of the next few months, we will be engaging key partners and stakeholders to develop the regulatory and policy framework to support the new and focused direction set out by these proposed changes to the Fisheries Act.

Through these changes, Fisheries and Oceans Canada would be better able to focus on its core mandate of protecting Canada's commercial, recreation and aboriginal fisheries, and also would ensure their sustainability and ongoing productivity. We would also reduce duplication and overlap.

We want to move the federal government out of the business of reviewing every activity in every body of water, regardless of the impact, to focusing on activities that pose a significant threat to the sustainability and productivity of the commercial, recreation or aboriginal fisheries. We want to adopt a common sense approach to managing real and significant threats to fisheries and the habitat that supports them, while minimizing the restrictions on routine and everyday activities that have little or no impact on the productivity of Canada's fisheries.

However, we cannot do this alone. The Fisheries Act amendments would allow us to effectively partner with the provinces and territories, aboriginal groups, conservation organizations and other stakeholders for the protection of Canada's fisheries. Under the revised Fisheries Act, the government would be able to enter into productive partnerships with provinces, industry and conservation groups to enable them to use their expertise to protect, monitor and conserve Canada's fisheries. This would allow the federal government to maximize its ability to collaborate with agencies and organizations that care about protecting the fisheries.

The new act would give the minister the authority to declare that if a provincial regulation made under the Fisheries Act met or exceeded the federal government standards, only the provincial regulations would apply where provinces have significant protection standards already in place. The federal government would not need to intervene in these situations.

Unlike the NDP and the Liberals, our government supports economic development in this country, while also ensuring the sustainability and ongoing productivity of commercial, recreational and aboriginal fisheries for future generations of Canadians.

The proposed changes in the Fisheries Act would help us achieve that goal. We ask the opposition members to get behind the bill and support it.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member kept referring to common sense. I remember, under a lot of these ministers, the common sense revolution from that side of the House that used to be at the provincial level in Ontario. We know how detrimental that was to Ontarians. I worked for the public service at the time.

I want to just touch on some of the environmental piece that my colleague was speaking of, and it is not common sense. There is a difference between streamlining and gutting. When we are talking about gutting, there is a lot of concern. We just have to look at the Plains Midstream Canada pipeline spill that has just happened in Red Deer River and the concerns that are being raised there.

We have concerns about what is happening in Ontario because we have the Ring of Fire that is about to be developed. The lax environmental laws are extremely concerning to fishermen, hunters, first nations and all of our communities. What kind of legislation will the Conservatives put in place as protection? We can see that they are gutting it and there will not be any protection for our wildlife and there will not be any protection against draining our lakes

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite likes to talk about common sense, but what we hear from the NDP members never makes common sense. There is no resource development program they would support. There is no tax they would not increase, and there is absolutely no other country they would not want to send Canadian tax dollars to.

What does not make sense is for us to supply a $20 billion bailout to European banks, which is what their leader wants to do. A $20 billion bailout of hard-working Canadian taxpayers' money, sent to another country, sent to another continent. That is the type of common sense we hear from the other side. I will take the common sense we hear from this Minister of Finance any day.

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite distressed. I am a terrestrial ecologist. I am not as expert as some of the members in the House here about what is under the water, but I know enough to know that it is ecosystems that matter. It is not just the fish that are fished by humans that matter. It is all fish, and beyond that it is all ecosystems.

Some of us know, but not all Canadians know, so let us share it with them one more time, that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is basically repealed in this omnibus bill. One of the things that is repealed is the definition of environment. The definition was written way back in 1993 under a previous Conservative government, I will add, a more sophisticated and knowledgeable government. That definition included the land, the water and the air, including all layers of the atmosphere, all organic and inorganic matter and living organisms and the interacting natural systems that include components referred to, et cetera.

I would like to ask the Conservatives why they simply do not care about ecosystems any more. Why, whether it is critters or fish, do they only care about the ones that are taken for human needs?

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

Mr. Speaker, I served on the environment committee. Our government is definitely committed to sustainable development. However, we do not believe it should be unbalanced, where we are just on one side of the issue or the other. We believe that we have to support the economy because without a sound, robust economy we cannot protect our environment. We need to have a balance.

That is what the bill is all about. It provides protection for fish habitat and it brings common sense solutions. No longer are we going to punish farmers who happen to have a pool form in their field and have to do ominous environmental assessments for the federal government for something that is standing water, basically. Now they will only have to do an environmental assessment when it actually affects the commercial fishery, the aboriginal fishery or the recreational fishery. It will be a fisheries act that actually protects the fishery. That is common sense.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House this evening to speak to Bill C-38, this massive bill that I would like to put into the recycle bin, but cannot. That is why I am here. I am representing the people of Berthier—Maskinongé.

The 2012 budget contains reckless cuts to services including the old-age security program, health care, transfers to the provinces and environmental assessments.

Bill C-38 is the budget implementation bill, but this bill is unlike any other. This 425-page document includes not only the measures described in the budget but also some changes that were not previously announced to the public. What a surprise. As a result, there is less transparency and more secrecy surrounding the government. That is just great.

This aspect worries me quite a bit. As elected members, we have a duty to defend the interests of our constituents. Beyond partisanship are the voters. That is why we are here. Those voters put their trust in us and we must be as transparent as possible. I am not seeing that across the way. With this bill the government is not being transparent with the public.

This bill is even preventing us, my colleagues and me, from doing our jobs. How can we study such a document in detail in such a short amount of time? The very essence of Parliament is being undermined because MPs are prevented from being well-informed about the content of the bill and its repercussions.

I am very worried and so are the people in my riding. They are worried about their jobs and, as I speak, I still have not received a clear answer from this government about the future of the Shawinigan tax centre. They are worried about their jobs. They are worried about the environment.

Every day, I receive letters from people who are worried about the government's cuts and the 2012 budget. These people feel that they have been taken hostage by the government and they are looking for a way to have their voices heard.

I thought I would share with you a letter from one of my constituents who wrote to me about the environment and said:

Ms. Brosseau,

I am writing to express my indignation and shame about the cuts the Conservative government is making to Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Environment Canada and Parks Canada.

Through these cuts and Bill C-38, the Conservative government is destroying the entire environmental protection structure, created over a number of years, to benefit the polluting and destructive industries.

Need I remind you that the environment and human health are closely linked? By cutting environmental protection measures, this government is endangering the public, and particularly the least fortunate who are usually more exposed to environmental stressors.

Need I also remind you that a number of economic sectors depend on a healthy environment? For example, by removing some fish habitats from the Fisheries Act, this government is showing its blatant lack of knowledge of environmental dynamics. Contamination knows no borders, and it can cause irreparable damage to the fragile balances within ecosystems.

Ms. Brosseau, can you remind this government that it serves Canadians and not the other way around? Can you also remind the government that it must not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their needs, and that it must especially not compromise the health of current citizens.

Charles de Grandpré

The public is concerned and informed. These people see what the government is trying to do with this Trojan Horse bill.

I am here to share their concerns. These people have a right to be heard.

I think the government should listen to them.

Canadians are worried about creating high-quality jobs, protecting our environment and improving retirement security.

What is this government doing? It is driving up the unemployment rate. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that this budget will result in the loss of 43,000 jobs in Canada. The government is withdrawing Canada from the Kyoto protocol and weakening environmental protection regulations, while attacking environmental protection groups. By withdrawing from Kyoto, the Conservatives are making Canada the laughingstock of the world. The Conservatives are slashing old age security, despite the fact that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed that the old age security system is viable. Yet the Conservatives still want to balance their budget at the expense of our seniors.

I would now like to quote some of my constituents who have written to me recently about the budget. “Bill C-38 worries us and we oppose the idea behind this bill, especially when it comes to EI reforms.” Another citizen said, “Dignity has no age or social status.” Another wrote the following, “Yes, old age security at age 67 is discouraging, and employment insurance requires far too many hours to qualify.” Lastly, another person said, “I worked my entire life, and now, at age 65, I am starving and very sick.”

These are just a few of the comments that I received. They clearly show that people are concerned, and not just in my riding.

In closing, I would like to talk about the changes to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Several parts of the agency are about to be privatized. These cuts to food inspection are a step backward, since we know that the listeriosis crisis in 2008 was caused by a lack of inspectors.

I would like to read a quote by Bob Kingston, president of the union that represents Canadian food inspectors. On April 24, 2012, he said:

These cuts and changes were planned behind closed doors and without the benefit of public input or the perspective of those who work on the front lines.

[...]

We will be doing all we can to make sure politicians and the public understand the impact of these cuts and hopefully the government will live up to its promise that food safety will not be compromised.

Bill C-38 also amends the Seeds Act to give the president of the CFIA the power to issue licences to persons authorizing them to perform activities related to controlling or assuring the quality of seeds or seed crops. This is found in division 26 of part 4. This amendment opens the door to having private companies do food inspection related work. This also sends worrisome signals about the growing likelihood of privatization of some parts of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

These changes scare me and I know that I am not the only one who feels this way.

How can the government make $56.1 million in cuts to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and still assure Canadians that they will be safe?

Canadians need transparency. People are not going to have confidence in this government if it quietly passes measures that will have a significant impact on the entire population. Why do the Conservatives want to pass this bill, which contains so many cuts, so quickly? Who stands to gain from them? The people in my riding? Canadians? I do not know. These are questions that I am asking myself as a member of Parliament, a citizen and a mother.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, in her remarks, the member talked a fair bit about the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. I know she is a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture. In fact, we did a tour of the supply management industry a week ago in the Casselman area.

The member also talked a fair bit about what Mr. Kingston had to say. Does she know the implications on our food safety system as a result of some of these measures that are being proposed in this particular bill?

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the trip with the member when we visited the pullet farms. With the committee, I also had the chance to visit Cargill in Guelph, which was quite the experience. It was memorable and something I will never forget. I learned a lot.

However, it really scares me when I think that these businesses will have more control to inspect food. It scares me and the people in my riding. It makes me worry about my son eating meat or salad. Businesses have no right to inspect their own foods. It needs to be up to the government. The privatization scares me.

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

Mr. Speaker, the cuts to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency are particularly unusual in that there is one portion of the budget, as opposed to being in Bill C-38, where funds will be provided to a number of agencies to deal with the results of Weatherill report, which dealt with listeriosis at the Maple Leaf plant, whereas the Canadian Food Inspection Agency bears the whole brunt of a $50 million cut. At the same time, the budget says that we will take food labels off some food products and tell consumers that they can look on the Internet for information. Coincidentally, the Conservatives are also cutting access to the Internet, the CAP sites in rural areas.

As one mom speaking to another mom, could the member tell me what consumers or moms are supposed to do when the information they might want can be found on the Internet but not on the product?

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in my rural riding, having access to the Internet does not always happen. It is very expensive. I heard that it is about $150 in some places and it is not even high speed. To say that Canadians have to go online to check what is in their foods is absolutely absurd. It is not right. It is 2012, but we are not there yet. It seems to have a snowball effect. We will have another tragedy and lives will be lost. What is it going to take? How many lives have to be lost?

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my NDP colleague a question.

As the mother of a young boy, what does she think of the fact that there is a children's fitness tax credit, but that it is non-refundable?

The way I see the problem, middle-class, upper-class and wealthy families can afford equipment for their kids so that they can participate in a physical activity, but poorer parents will not benefit from this.

What does she think of that?

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

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

As a single parent, I know that it is really hard to make ends meet. I had my son when I was 17, and it is not easy. At times, I had two jobs. Sometimes paying for sports and music lessons is just not possible. When people have to choose whether to pay for housing, electricity or food, it costs too much. Tax credits for sports and activities are of no use to people with little money.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and for the Asia-Pacific Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, it is a delight to be able to participate in this debate on Bill C-38, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act. Like my colleague, the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, I want to address the changes proposed in Bill C-38 to the Fisheries Act, in particular.

Let me begin by telling the House how I approach legislation, and not just this legislation but all legislation that I see. I ask myself a couple of key questions. The first one is, “What problem is this legislation attempting to solve?” Of course a related question is, “Is there a problem at all, or are we happy enough with the status quo?” I think that is a key question to ask. The second key question is, “Does this legislation solve that problem in the best way possible?” In the end, my comments about these changes to the Fisheries Act are going to answer those questions.

The focus of the original Fisheries Act was to regulate fishing and activities that directly impact fishing. However, over the years the Fisheries Act has grown to include powers and authorities aimed at conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat. On its own, that may not have been a bad thing.

The problem is due to direction, some of it coming from the courts. We now no longer effectively discriminate how we regulate small-scale impacts and low-value fisheries, like stream crossings on farmland, and projects that are larger scale with those large impacts and more valuable fisheries, like a hydroelectric development or sockeye salmon.

The government has been talking with stakeholders over a number of years. I have been connected to Fisheries and Oceans now for several years and have been part of this. We know that people care about fisheries protection and proponents that undertake development activities in and around fisheries waters. They talk to us about their challenges.

Based on their knowledge and the issues they have raised, we have determined that we need to do at least three things to solve this problem. We need to streamline our process and reduce overlap and duplication. Second, we need to reinforce our commitment to protect Canada's commercial, recreational and aboriginal fisheries. We need to be more discriminating as to where and how we apply our mandate to protect fisheries.

We could add a fourth, and that is that we need to create an enabling environment to be able to partner with others, whether they be provinces or conservation groups and others.

In a nutshell, I think we need to move the federal government out of the business of reviewing every activity on every body of water, regardless of the impact, to focusing on activities that pose a significant threat to the sustainability and productivity of commercial, recreational or aboriginal fisheries.

We want to adopt a common sense approach to managing real and significant threats to fisheries and the habitat that supports them while minimizing the restrictions on routine, everyday activities that have little or no impact on the productivity of Canada's fisheries.

We recognize the importance of Canada's fisheries across the country, and our government is introducing changes that would focus our fish and fish habitat protection measures on Canada's commercial, recreational and aboriginal fisheries.

The new changes would protect the productivity of Canada's fisheries while providing much-needed clarity to Canadians by, first of all, focusing the government's protection efforts on those three fisheries; second, drawing a distinction between vital waterways that support Canada's fisheries and unproductive bodies of water, like man-made reservoirs, drainage ditches in some cases and irrigation channels; and third, identifying and managing real threats to the fisheries, including direct impacts to fish, habitat destruction and aquatic invasive species.

To help focus limited resources on projects and areas that are significant in scope and in impact, the act would enable the exemption of certain types of lower risk and routine activities or waters, like digging farm ditches or draining flooded fields, from the prohibition.

Under the revised Fisheries Act, the government would be able to enter into productive partnerships with provinces, industry and conservation groups to enable them to use their expertise to protect, monitor and conserve Canada's fisheries. This would allow the federal government to maximize its ability to collaborate with agencies and organizations that care about protecting fisheries. Enhanced partnering opportunities with organizations would help support the conservation of fisheries. Collaboration would also be streamlined by enhanced abilities to enter into legal agreements for the effective protection of fisheries.

Better partnerships with other government agencies are also key to reducing duplication and overlap. We are proposing to achieve this through new authorities that would allow other federal departments, such as the National Energy Board or the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, for example, or provinces, to issue authorizations under the Fisheries Act.

The new act would also give the minister the authority to declare that, if a provincial regulation made under the Fisheries Act meets or beats the federal government standards, only the provincial regulation would need apply. If the province has strong protection in place, the federal government would not need to intervene.

Let me say this, because this has been the subject of some question. There is a new prohibition in the act, a new section 35. This new section would replace text that had become outdated and no longer reflected today's reality. The prohibition states that it is prohibited for any person to undertake any works, undertakings or activities that result in serious harm to fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or aboriginal fishery or a fish that supports these fisheries. It also defines in the act what that serious harm is. It is the death of fish or permanent alteration to or destruction of fish habitat. Fish habitat is defined in the act as spawning grounds and any other areas, including nursery, rearing, food supply and migration areas on which fish depend directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life processes.

The amended Fisheries Act also includes tools to enable greater protection of ecologically significant areas such as spawning grounds for sockeye salmon, which is important of course in British Columbia where I come from. These amendments would make it easier to clearly identify and therefore to better protect these zones. Other tools to protect fisheries include enhanced compliance and enforcement tools, such as enforceable conditions, the obligation for proponents to notify government officials in the event of serious harm to fisheries, and penalties that are aligned with the Environmental Enforcement Act.

The amendments to the Fisheries Act would also provide for greater transparency in decision-making. Under the existing law the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans does not have to take any specific factors into consideration when he is making decisions. In the new Fisheries Act, factors that the minister would need to take into account when making certain decisions and exercising certain powers would add clarity and transparency to decisions. The minister would have to show that he has considered key factors before he can make regulatory decisions related to, for example, the new prohibition, regulations and authorizations. The minister would also need to consider these factors when he is exercising powers related to fish passage, exclusions and authorizations and designating ecologically significant areas, just to name a few. They are listed in the act, and I encourage my colleagues to go and look at them in more detail.

In addition, the minister would prepare and present to Parliament a report on the administration of agreements and equivalency, if any agreements are entered into with the provinces, and enforcement of the provisions relating to fisheries protection and pollution protection after the end of each fiscal year.

The new act would recognize that this is where protection is needed, not in farmers' fields, not in irrigation ditches, not where there are no fisheries; it would recognize that we cannot do this alone and allow us to effectively partner with the provinces and territories, aboriginal groups, conservation organizations and other stakeholders for the protection of Canada's fisheries.

Now I will get back to those questions. Is there a problem? I think there is, and I think many Canadians do as well.

Does this legislation address these problems in an effective way? I think it does. It is not perfect; no legislation is, but it goes a long way to addressing these problems. We are going to have sustainability and productivity of commercial, recreational and aboriginal fisheries for future generations of Canadians, and that is what we need.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I just love it when government members answer their own questions, in the affirmative of course. We have some more questions to ask as well. There are many issues in the budget implementation bill, too many to raise, unfortunately. A few of them have been raised tonight.

One issue that I have been focusing on is why there is nothing in the bill to deal with the crisis that faces many Canadians around affordable housing. In my community of Metro Vancouver, we are now facing a difficult situation where thousands of households are paying 40%, 50%, 60% of their income in rent.

I would like the hon. member to explain why his government has been completely oblivious to this issue. Why has it not dealt with it in the budget? The government has not invested a single cent for affordable housing in the budget or the budget implementation bill. I do not know if it is an issue in that member's local community, but it certainly is elsewhere in Canada. Why has the government ignored this problem so it is now of crisis proportion?

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if the member is implying that, because a particular measure is not included in this particular budget, we have somehow quit funding housing and affordable housing, then she is mistaken. She should know better than that. On an ongoing basis, that has shown up in previous budgets. We have put billions of dollars into affordable housing and various programs and we will continue to do that.

We acknowledge that this budget is a complex document. It is about jobs and growth and long-term prosperity. It provides a template; it provides a way forward in order to achieve that. That is the focus of this. If the member waits for future budgets, perhaps she will see something else along the lines she is looking for.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have had the pleasure of working for a number of years on the fisheries and oceans committee with the parliamentary secretary. I know him to be an honest and honourable member of Parliament, and I will ask him this question knowing that full well.

While the current Minister of Fisheries was at ACOA there were some questionable hirings and those hirings are now under investigation by the Public Service Commission. Defeated Tory candidates were being put into the public service. That is the longest running investigation ever undertaken by the Public Service Commission.

Now employees are being transferred from St. John's, which was always the regional fishing financial hub of Atlantic Canada, to Fredericton, while the government had long-term leases in St. John's. The government has to acquire new lease space in Fredericton, a city that does not have a wharf. That city just happens to be in the minister's constituency. Employees are being moved from Moncton as well, where the government owns a building with two empty floors.

Does my colleague see that as a good financial move without any politics involved at all? Does he see that as a wise financial investment?

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I really hope my colleague from Cape Breton—Canso is not questioning the integrity of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans because that would be really beneath him.

We have responded to this in the House a number of times. Fisheries and Oceans Canada has six locations now where it undertakes administrative tasks, largely accounting and procurement tasks. It does not make sense to us to have that happen in six places. It makes reporting relationships more difficult. We think that should be in one place. I could be wrong about this, but my understanding is that an individual does not need a view of the water to be able to do those functions.

It would be helpful if we could find a place with low overhead values, four universities, a highly trained workforce and a lot of bilingual speakers. That is the place we are looking for. That is the place where we are moving this centre of excellence.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to condemn the Conservatives' mammoth bill, which some have called a Trojan Horse.

When preparing my speech today, I did not know where to begin. That is exactly the problem. The government is giving Canadians a 425-page bill so that they get discouraged and decide not to read it because it is not worth the trouble. In short, this bill is too long.

That has been the government's goal all along. It wants Canadians and Quebeckers to get so discouraged about democracy that they stop participating. That is the message the government is sending, and I am very worried about it.

We have tried to split this bill so that Canadians have a chance to study each part individually. We tried to be reasonable with the government, but unfortunately, it rejected our request to split the bill. Despite all that, the government says that we are the ones delaying the process.

I am sorry, but 425 pages amending over 70 different acts deserve a lot more time for debate. The government is refusing to let the House study this bill the right way, and that is why we are trying to have this debate.

I want to point something else out as well. This government says that it is very important to pass this bill quickly, because it is a job creation plan. Excuse me, but there is no job creation plan in this budget.

The Conservatives are too concerned about giving gifts to their friends and making the most vulnerable suffer, including seniors by increasing the OAS eligibility age from 65 to 67.

The government is attacking seasonal workers who need employment insurance. Whether we like it or not, here in Canada we have seasons. We have winter. Agricultural workers cannot work in the winter. I do not know why this government does not understand the climate in which we live.

The government is far too concerned about these things to create any jobs. This bill includes amendments, such as that to old age security, which will not be in effect until 2023. Why can we not debate this bill a few hours longer, especially when we know that these changes will not come into effect until 2023?

I hope that we will be in power in 2023 and that these changes will not take place. Nonetheless, in the meantime we could debate the matter a little longer.

We know that this bill has no job creation plan and has more cuts than investments. That is a problem. We know what is not in this bill. However, I would like to talk about what is in this bill.

As the NDP critic for digital issues, I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to a change, found in two or three of the 425 pages of this bill, that will allow foreign telecommunications companies to do business in Canada for the first time. This is found within these 425 pages.

I am sure that the majority of Canadians are not even aware that such a change is on the books because it is hidden. The government is trying to push this bill through quickly in the hope that Canadians will forget about this change, but this change will have real repercussions on the viability of telecommunications companies in Canada. We have to weigh this change and its repercussions and take the necessary time to study it.

What is more, the voices of scientists and academics here in Canada will no longer be heard. They will be completely muzzled.

I participated in the budget consultations that were held across Canada. One scientist in particular told us that she was afraid of working in the environmental field. She said that she was afraid of losing her job because she speaks her mind and she speaks out for science. I am really shocked by these comments. Things are in a bad way when a scientist says that they are afraid to voice their opinion. I believe that is a problem. However, it seems that this government could not care less about scientists. The opinion of Conservative ministers is much more important.

The government will also be eliminating environmental assessments. It will muzzle the people who have a real interest in these matters and who are worried about having a pipeline in their riding or close to their homes and who are worried about environmental hazards. We have seen that environmentally significant sites may be destroyed as a result of what has happened in Alberta. There are people, such as scientists, who are right to have questions and who should be allowed to participate in public consultations. Unfortunately, they will no longer be able to do so. Once again, it does not appear to warrant debate.

As the digital issues critic, I would once again like to speak about cuts to the community access program. At the same time, huge cuts have been made to public services and the public sector. These are direct services to citizens. What are people told to do? They are told to check the Internet, where all the services they need are available. Except there is a problem in rural areas. There are small communities and some people may not have enough money to pay for Internet access at home. They used to go to the library to use the Internet services, but that program has been cut.

These people, who now have less access to social services because of cuts to the public sector, many not even have access to the Internet at the library. These cuts really are illogical and irresponsible and they have been made without any consultation.

I would also like to talk a bit about the fact that we have withdrawn from the Kyoto protocol, which has embarrassed us internationally. That is really something.

The Conservatives claim to be the advocates for job creation and of the economy. However, I would like to say that there is a company in Boisbriand, which is not in my riding but in the neighbouring riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, that lost a contract because Canada withdrew from the Kyoto protocol. The purchaser did not want to deal with a country that is not responsible and does not think about the environment; it did not want to have anything to do with a country like that. That is significant.

So, when the Conservatives say that the economy is the most important thing, they need to realize that the economy and the environment go together. How can we invest in long-term prosperity, as it says in the title of this budget, when we do not have an acceptable environment? We are leaving a huge ecological debt for future generations, and that is something of great concern to me. I hope that all the Conservatives are concerned about it too.

Since I do not have much time left, I would like to close with a quote from our former leader, Ed Broadbent, who said, “This federal budget should provoke a public debate about the kind of Canada we want.”

Not only do I not want that kind of Canada, but we did not even have the opportunity to have the debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for the very interesting speech.

I will be very brief as I know time is running out on this debate.

Today, over 120 environmental lawyers from across Canada issued a statement warning that the destruction of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act through Bill C-38 would cause more delays, more uncertainty, and more court challenges.

I want to draw the attention of members to what good environmental assessment has done over the years. The fact is it is a tool for planning.

If it had not been for an environmental assessment that allowed the cumulative effects of the Honshu Paper-Mitsubishi plant in northern Alberta called Alpac to be studied, that huge multinational factory would not have decided on its own to offer to improve its environmental regime during the process. The same thing happened with Louisiana Pacific in Saskatchewan with its oriented strandboard plant.

With this current bill, we will have more pollution, more environmental devastation. We will lack the tools to plan and prepare for projects that mitigate their environmental effects.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

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

When it comes right down to it, yes, we need this information, this knowledge and these data. How are we supposed to plan and make responsible decisions when we do not have any data or expertise in the field? If we want to plan for the future, if we want to have a prosperous economy in the future, we need such expertise and data.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

She spoke about something we often hear in the House. The government often tells people that they just have to use the Internet. She mentioned that a lot of people do not have access to Internet, but there is something else that she did not have time to mention: some people are not comfortable on the Internet. We all have constituents who come to our offices asking us to do Service Canada's job because they do not understand. When they call, they do not get an answer, and when they go online, things are not always clear.

I would like my colleague to tell us to what extent, in her day-to-day work, she can see how reductions in services and cuts to Service Canada are having a direct impact on the public.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the impact of the cuts is clear.

In my riding office, before December, there were just two files involving constituents dealing with employment insurance problems. Now everyone who walks into my office comes for that reason. These people have nothing. They have absolutely nothing left and they have to wait for months and months, three or even four months in some cases. That is not even a remotely reasonable wait time.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in relation to the comment from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, I do not doubt that environmental lawyers are upset because when we are streamlining processes, that is a direct hit at their incomes. It is obvious why they are protesting.

In terms of the economic illiteracy displayed by the NDP, if our country went in the direction the NDP wanted us to go, we would end up like Greece and the other failing economies of Europe. This government, this party, simply will not go there.

Does my hon. friend have a clue how jobs are created and wealth is created in our country? Jobs and wealth are the first things required before we can spend money on social programs.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do know how to create jobs: by investing in the green economy.

Where is the government's plan for the green economy? Nowhere, because it does not exist. Economy and environment go together. There is no need to choose one or the other because they go hand in hand.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. As someone who has been an environmental lawyer before becoming a member of Parliament, I was not a signatory to that letter, but I would ask the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette to withdraw the quite dismaying insinuation that the only reason environmental lawyers would seek to raise a concern about this is if they make money. Those people in environmental law--

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I think we are really talking about a matter of debate with respect to the facts that hon. members have said. The hon. member will know that members are given a great degree of freedom in terms of the ideas they wish to express in the House. I did not hear anything that was unparliamentary in that respect.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in the House tonight on behalf of my constituents of Pickering—Scarborough East to Bill C-38, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act, and against the NDP and Liberal opposition attempts to delay and defeat it.

I fully support the bill as it logically provides the very foundation, which I can appreciate as an engineer, for building Canada's future economic strength for many years to come in order to maintain our country as the best place in the world to live, raise a family and do business.

I have two professions, the profession of arms and professional engineering. This bill focuses like a laser on the well-being of Canada. That is true. Bill C-38, as members may know, includes vital measures contained in Canada's economic action plan 2012 first introduced in this chamber nearly four months ago. It will help set the stage for the next wave of job creation and economic growth and position Canada for a secure and prosperous future.

Before continuing, I will note one great measure in economic action plan 2012 that my constituents in Pickering—Scarborough East are very excited about.

As we all know, national parks are very popular in Canada—

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, I think you are observing, as well as others in the House, the unparliamentary behaviour of the opposition members in the NDP making physical motions and gestures that are very disrespectful to the person delivering the speech right now.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member for his intervention. Members will know that, as is usually the case when another member is speaking, members keep their comments and discussions very low so that it does not interrupt other hon. members.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I would like to reassure my hon. colleague that on this side of the House I do, indeed, want to hear the comments of his hon. colleague and would very much like to continue to listen.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to apologize for making gestures. I have seen hon. members in all parts of the House reading newspapers during speeches and debates and I regret that my behaviour has stooped to the level of members of all parties in the House that I have observed over the past year.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We have had sufficient interventions. I would ask that members keep their comments to themselves. If they wish to carry on conversations with their colleagues, I would ask them to please take it out to the lobby. The House is where we are presenting speeches, asking questions and making comments for other hon. members who wish to listen.

The hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, national parks are very popular in Canada, attracting many visitors with their natural beauty. Unfortunately, too many Canadians, especially in large cities, do not have easy access to our national parks. I am happy that our Conservative government is helping to change that and would hope that opposition MPs would have supported it instead of voting against it.

As noted in economic action plan 2012, we committed to create Canada's first national urban park in the Rouge Valley, proudly located in my riding. This initiative will provide opportunities for local residents and visitors to enjoy, discover and learn about the Rouge Valley's rich, natural and cultural heritage.

This announcement has been greeted with much support and excitement throughout the GTA and across Canada. An opinion poll conducted in 2010 indicated that 88% of respondents supported this initiative. It is fantastic to see this park create such excitement in not just the GTA but across Canada. This park will allow citizens from all over our great nation to experience the natural beauty of—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hate to be persnickety about this, but there is absolutely nothing about the Rouge Valley national park in Bill C-38. I just want to ask about relevance.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Members are given a great degree of liberty in terms of the ideas that they may wish to express in their remarks, and yes, the hon. member is right, that they would eventually bring those ideas back around to their pertinence to the question that is before the House. However, one generally gives the member time to connect those dots and bring forth ideas. I am sure the hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East is getting around to the point.

The hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, this park will allow our citizens from all over our great nation to experience the natural beauty of Pickering—Scarborough East as well as easy access to more than 30% of the Canadian population which is in its close proximity.

Alan Wells, chair of the Rouge Park Alliance has declared, “This is the best news I have heard. I'm glad it is quickly moving forward”. Toronto city councillor, Glenn De Baeremaeker, said, “To see the prime minister...saying loudly and clearly that they'll protect this land is a dream come true for us”. Jim Robb, general manager of Friends of the Rouge Watershed added, “It's wonderful the federal government is going to create a national park that's accessible by transit”. Finally, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society said that this “will help safeguard and restore the Rouge Valley's important ecological values, and enable millions of Canadians to develop a greater appreciation for nature”. I hope all Canadians will one day have the opportunity to visit this beautiful national park and share that excitement.

As I said before, today's act is very important for the Canadian economy. Our Conservative government's top focus is just that, creating jobs, promoting economic growth and ensuring long-term prosperity. We know what matters to Canadians and their families and we are getting results for them on that front with nearly 760,000 net new jobs created since July 2009, 90% full-time and over 80% private sector.

However, the global economy is fragile and challenges remain as we see with events in European countries like Spain and Greece. We all know that Canada is not immune to these global challenges and we need to be on guard. That is why we are working hard to implement economic action plan 2012 and why we, along with many Canadians, are so disappointed in the NDP and Liberals for refusing to put Canadians ahead of their own partisan agenda by delaying these important measures to help Canada's economy to keep its good momentum.

Indeed, I will again reiterate the main observations repeated several times by now but worth being emphasized by its accurate and pointed analysis from a recent editorial in the Toronto Sun. It reads:

As Europe stands poised on the brink of a disastrous economic wildfire that could blacken the world, [the] NDP leader['s] hypocrisy and self-obsession is in full flame.

...vowing to delay the passing of [economic action plan 2012]... playing...with amendments and procedure.... This is nothing but grandstanding.

This is a budget designed to create jobs and inspire economic growth, and it comes to the House of Commons at a moment that can only be described as the 11th hour of a global economic conflagration....

Right now, there is only one enemy in our fight to protect Canada from the repercussions of Europe's burning. And it's [the NDP leader]...

This is inarguable.

I agree, and would hope the NDP will listen to the words of that Toronto Sun editorial and many other Canadians.

As I have mentioned, economic action plan 2012 will unleash the potential of Canadian businesses and entrepreneurs to innovate and thrive in the modern global economy through targeted measures that support business investment, invest in Canadian workers and support families.

However, economic action plan 2012 does not do that heedlessly at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer. In fact, all of our efforts will be supported by responsible fiscal management. That has meant a careful review of how we spend money to ensure we are getting the best for our buck, much like most Canadian families would at the dinner table with their household budget.

It is a prudent approach that will see Canada return to budgetary balance in the coming short years, and that is important for many reasons, like freeing up tax dollars otherwise absorbed by interest payments, ensuring we can afford programs over the long run, and ensuring we can keep taxes low and much more.

Although this was a comprehensive review of government spending, it was targeted and effective, including eliminating the penny and getting rid of plastic SIN cards. The reductions reflect changes to refocus government and programs, make it easier for Canadians and businesses to deal with their government and modernize and reduce the back office.

In the words of a recent Ottawa Citizen editorial on our Conservative government spending review:

The overall attitude...has been that every dollar must prove its worth. The answer that “we've always done it that way” isn't good enough...The small and simple cuts have a significance beyond their individual dollar figures. They suggest the government is willing to turn out the couch cushions and come up with change. Good. The elimination of the penny, for example, is not a new idea. But it took a government to decide that now is the time. It's only $11 million a year, but $11 million saved is $11 million the government doesn't have to take from taxpayers or cut from services. The same is true...of the $1.5 million a year the government will save by simply telling us what our Social Insurance Numbers are, rather than issuing cards we never use and aren't supposed to carry with us. These little cuts are sensible...they're conservative in the sense of being fiscally prudent.

The measures I have highlighted today are significant examples of this government's commitment to a strong economy and responsible management in the name of all Canadians. The commitment represents our longer-term view of how we can become more efficient and more prudent with taxpayers' hard-earned money.

As our Conservative government has said all along, the global economic recovery remains fragile. That makes responsible management to return to balanced budgets even more important, and that is why it is the focus of Canada's economic action plan 2012. The steps we take today will give us the ability to withstand the global challenges from Europe and beyond. That is why our Conservative government's main focus has been and will remain the economy, including implementing Canada's economic action plan 2012, and why I do not support the NDP and opposition attempts to delay and defeat it.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments, but I want to correct him on something. He talked about the penny. We are glad the government is doing that, but it was an NDP initiative a few years ago.

Also, he mentioned the national park. I see that we got the rhetoric on the other side, but these were the guys who were complaining a little while ago. However, on the environment piece, we talked about the national park. With the gutting of the environmental legislation, I think members need to be concerned about that.

Let us see what the National Post had to say today.

The bill...makes it easier to gain approval to build pipelines under rivers, similar to the Plains Midstream Canada pipeline currently spilling oil into the Red Deer River. Under the existing legislation, there is prohibition on “the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat”.....

That is not the case under this bill.

Grassy Narrows and White Dog have been suffering from mercury poisoning for many years, as there was no strict environmental enforcement and protection. What will happen? Will we have more Grassy Narrows and White Dog situations coming forward?

We have asked the question, but would you eat fish from Grassy Narrows?

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I remind hon. members to direct questions and comments through the chair.

The hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a working person and I know how important the environmental assessment is. However, environmental assessment must not be a bargain to do the job.

We have very strong standards in this country. However, I would remind the member that there are provincial and federal standards, and these standards must be harmonized. If we are living in the same country and the same province, then we should not have two standards, we should only have one.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Pickering—Scarborough East would not be the first Conservative to try and reinvent history.

Just for the record, the member should know that the Conservative government took a surplus, blew it and created a deficit. The Conservatives, in terms of the budget and their programs over the last number of years, are increasing the gap between the rich and the poor. In fact, they are increasing poverty in the country. That is the reality. That is not fiscal management for the good of the country.

My question really relates to the member's point on parks--

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, order. Order. I am certain that the hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East would like to hear the question from the member for Malpeque. There is too much noise in the chamber.

The hon. member for Malpeque has the floor.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad you tuned up the other side.

I am pleased that the member is happy about the Rouge Valley national park, but government policy on existing parks is destroying them. In my province, at the Prince Edward Island National Park, it has contracted out, laid off workers and have made full-time workers into seasonal workers. That is what is happening there.

That is not the way to build a national park system. In Bill C-38, why is the government eliminating the requirement for Parks Canada to table an annual corporate plan and financial report? What does it have to hide in terms of—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order. The hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to tell the member one thing. We are managing the economy, clearly. We are managing it well and we are saving money. We are cutting red tape. If the member is looking at the parks, we are managing the parks. We are managing them well.

Maybe the hon. member does not agree with the good management by our government.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before I call on the member for Trinity—Spadina, I will let her know that I will need to interrupt her at the 12 o'clock mark, this being the end of the time allocated for debate for today.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina.

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

Mr. Speaker, my speech will describe the winners and the losers in this budget. Tonight I only have time to talk about the losers. To hear about the winners, members will have to wait until tomorrow after question period.

What does a job mean to an average Canadian? It means earning a salary to put food on the table, pay rent or meet the mortgage on time, buy Christmas presents and have money for pizza day at school for the kids. When a person loses a job, it is devastating. For some people it means losing their self-esteem, self-confidence, friends, and their community of work colleagues.

In the Conservative budget we are debating tonight, we are really talking about the lives of 43,000 Canadians who will lose their jobs directly because of this budget, and there are a lot more than 43,000 Canadians who are going to lose their jobs indirectly.

However, 43,000 Canadian workers will no longer have the money to contribute to the economy. They will suffer the humiliation of being laid off. Some will lose their house. Others will suffer depression. A few may not even recover from being unemployed or ever be able to find a job again.

Some lives will be destroyed. Those 43,000 Canadians are casualties of this terrible budget. The number of 43,000 was the number quoted by the Parliamentary Budget Officer in his analysis of this budget on April 26. He confirmed that this budget would slow the economy down. He confirmed that when combined with prior cuts, there will be a total of 103,000 jobs lost.

[An hon. member]

From where?

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

About a third of them are from the public sector, to answer the questions about where. The rest will be from the private sector.

[Jim Flaherty]

Where? Which country? What are you talking about?

[Peter Julian]

Let her speak. Let her speak.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Why does the Minister of Finance want to heckle?

[Jim Flaherty]

Because she is making up numbers.

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

The PBO's number points to the fact that this budget will create—

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Why does the Minister of Finance want to heckle?

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order—

[Jim Flaherty]

Because she is making up numbers. That is why your party is a joke.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, order. Order. I can be patient with hon. members as well. We only have about a minute and a half left. The hon. member for Trinity—Spadina has the floor. Again I would ask members who wish to carry on conversations to take it outside.

The hon. member for Trinity—Spadina.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the lives of more than 100,000 workers. This budget actually plans for unemployment to rise. It does nothing to train Canadians. It does little to create jobs. It is a job-cutting budget. It is a job-reduction budget. It is a job-loss budget. Who said more than 100,000 workers? Again, it was the Parliamentary Budget Officer on April 26.

If the Minister of Finance chooses not to listen, it is the same kind of behaviour as saying, “The F-35 is only $15 billion. Actually, it is $25 billion.” It is that same kind of math. This budget would lose 100,000 jobs. That is the problem with this budget.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order. The hon. member for Trinity—Spadina will have six minutes remaining for her speech and five minutes for questions and comments when the House next resumes debate on the question.

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

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has run out.

We will now move on to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Hull—Aylmer.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am surprised to hear the member for Ottawa—Orléans say that the national capital region will experience extraordinary economic development. He says that only 5,000 public service jobs will disappear, but all the economists put that number at 20,000, and let us also not forget the economic impact on businesses in general.

I would love to understand the thinking of the member for Ottawa—Orléans. Instead of fighting for public service jobs and services, he has the nerve to tell us that the national capital region will somehow benefit from everything that is happening in the government, and that includes people who are waiting for jobs, and people who require services.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer very much for her question.

She thinks the only good jobs are public service jobs. Public service jobs are very important. However, taxpayers are not the only ones who can support the economy.

Recently, over the past month, 9,000 new jobs were created in the national capital region. These are good jobs, even though they are not public service jobs.

As for the cuts, it is all relative. They are not the drastic cuts that the unions announced. We are not talking about 60,000 jobs, as we were told, or even 20,000 jobs, as claimed by the hon. member. These are minimal cuts that will be more than absorbed by the jobs created in the private sector.

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

Madam Speaker, I know that my colleagues want me to ask a question on OAS.

Certainly, if there is a group of Canadians who are most hard done by this provision in the bill, it is those turning 66 or 67 years old down the road. It is those who live on low income and try to get by week to week. It is those Canadians with disabilities who, when they hit 65, think they have won the lottery because they are able to received OAS and the guaranteed income supplement. They think they have struck it rich. However, they will now have to wait another two years in order to realize that, and for no reason whatsoever, with no rationale whatsoever.

I would ask my colleague this. Why did the government not at least make some kind of provision for those most vulnerable, for those on restricted incomes, for the disabled people across this country? Why did the Conservatives not make provision for them?

If the member comes back with the point about income splitting, he has to know that one needs an income to split before benefiting from that.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that I always enjoy his rhetoric. However, in the meantime, I would ask that the member for Malpeque recognize that he has not been recognized.

The hon. member is asking about OAS. He is trying to scare people with stories that do not happen.

We are an incrementalist government. What he says is going to happen will not happen for another 13 years and when it does, it will happen incrementally, starting seven years from now. He does not have to scare people with this. People will have time to plan for this, and by planning they will be able to deal with their future on their own.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the chance to participate in the debate on Bill C-38. The theme of my remarks is “How have the mighty fallen”.

Those of us with some sense of history and memory can recall the spirit that brought Reform into this House. It was the spirit of parliamentary accountability. It was the spirit of free votes. It was the spirit of constructive dissent. It was the spirit of recall. It was the spirit of bringing the executive to heel. It was the spirit of letting Parliament be free and letting Parliament be sovereign and letting Parliament be powerful.

How have the mighty fallen on that side of the House, from those basic premises of a Reform Party led by the likes of Preston Manning, who stood in this place, not in the front row but among the members because he did not want to be seen as any different or better than any of the other members.

I say to my colleagues that they should look at themselves in the mirror and ask themselves “Where was the Reform Party spirit in this legislation, an omnibus bill that, like a Mac truck, drives through parliamentary sovereignty, drives through the power and ability of Parliament to control the public purse, ignores any scrutiny by committee and denies the rights of members to dissent?”

The poor member over there from Kootenay—Columbia had four hours of freedom, four hours of conscience, four hours of power, where he told his constituents that if he had his way he would split the bill. We can only imagine the woodshed to which that member was taken. We can only imagine the number of young enthusiasts in the Prime Minister's Office who tied him up to a chair and made him watch the speeches by the Prime Minister over and over again. They would not have taken the masking tape off his mouth until he had promised that he would never express independence or dissent again.

On this side, we say “Shame on the Conservative Party.” Shame on a party that has lost its way, that has lost its principles, that has tied up its members and denied them the right of conscience and the right to speak. That is the great irony of ironies.

Who would have believed that it would be the spiritual successors of the Reform Party that would in fact be denying Parliament, tying it up in knots, insisting on our voting on 70 different pieces of legislation, totally gutting all of the environmental legislation, passing a brand new environmental assessment act in just one clause.

It was the greatest conservative, who is also a great liberal, Edmund Burke, who reminded us that society is a contract not only of the living but also between those who have died, those who are living and those who are yet to be born.

When we look at the importance of the environment to a genuine conservative movement, a movement that wants to conserve, contrast that with those who want a pipeline in every backyard without any kind of environmental hearing, who have a Minister of Natural Resources who takes off after individuals who appear before an environmental inquiry, where we have legislation that takes away the protection of the fish habitat from the basics of our legislation, and that also, as has already been said by my distinguished colleague from Cape Breton, deprives the poorest of seniors in the future of access to old age security and the guaranteed income supplement.

That is what has happened to the Conservatives. They are not real Conservatives because they do not want to conserve the thing that matters most to us: our environment, the thing that we have to pass on to the next generation. That is what they are changing.

This government is prepared to deny Parliament all the rights we have had for years: the ability to study a bill, the ability to change it and the ability to amend it. Above all, in this Parliament, every MP should have the right to his or her own conscience, the right to make decisions and the right to act independently.

I can say that that is what the Liberal Party of Canada is committed to.

If we are serious about democracy, then we have to be serious about the environment.

By way of contrast, regarding the comments made over the past several weeks by the leader of the official opposition with respect to the question of the environment, with respect to the so-called Dutch disease, and with respect to the issue of how we need to go forward, I want to make this very clear: The Liberal Party is committed to sustainability. We are committed to the principle of sustainability over time. We are also committed to the principle of development. Nothing is gained for Canada when we pit one region of the country against another. Nothing is gained for Canada when we say that those provinces that are rich in resources are somehow responsible for the difficulties and challenges facing those provinces with less.

I have been in this House for a while and I can recall and know the impact these divisions can have on this federation of ours. It will do nothing for us as a country if we say, even as a momentary proposition, that the success of one region of the country or one province is somehow being purchased at the expense of others. That is never going to be a way to build a country. A country cannot be built on resentment. A country cannot be built by way of saying that those who are successful must somehow be torn down. We do not agree with that. We do not share that perspective.

That is why I believe that at this moment in Canadian history, there has never been a time when the message of the Liberal Party has been more important for all the people of the country. I am very proud to say that this message has to come through loud and clear. Yes, we want development, and we want it to be sustainable.

I can say to those people who are being laid off at the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy to come to us. We want to talk to people about these issues. When I talk to the leaders of the business community in Alberta, they want a clearer price for carbon. They want to have a clear indication of what it is going to cost them to build and to rebuild. They know that perfectly well.

This is an issue where we need to bring people together, where we need to reason together.

This is an issue we need to unite the public on. There has been enough division. We do not want any more division. We do not want a world where the Leader of the Opposition sees the Prime Minister when he looks in the mirror and where the Prime Minister sees the leader of the official opposition when he looks in the mirror.

Are the members of the official opposition free to express themselves? I doubt it. Are they free to have an opinion that differs from their leader's? I doubt it.

In contrast, I can say that my MPs are free to make their own decisions. They are free to choose how they will vote. They are free to speak. I can assure everyone that all our caucus meetings are a great expression of the principle of democracy, a profound, open and, I must say, liberal democracy.

Therefore, when we see Bill C-38, it is impossible in 10 minutes to go through all of its aspects and all of its different parts. It is grotesque in the way it attempts literally to drive a truck through basic principles and institutions that have been critical to the good governance of the country. Whether it is the round table, the inspector general for CSIS, or whatever the institution may be, a genuine conservative does not drive a truck through these institutions. One protects and preserves and improves them.

One does not cut down, one does not destroy and one does not divide simply for the sake of division. One does not polarize simply for the sake of polarization.

This country needs to come together in an important way.

I want to express my appreciation to the Speaker tonight and my dear colleagues who are speaking so well on this issue and have provided leadership. We will be voting not just once, not just twice, not just three times, but 160 times against this terrible piece of legislation.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague, who sounded a bit like a wounded bear. I would like to challenge him on some of the things he said and ask him a question.

This budget is really about building Canada and the vision he talked about so inappropriately of Preston Manning, his vision of smaller government, greater opportunity for the private sector, lowering taxes to enable that and to help the private sector make this country what it truly is, the greatest nation in the world, the one that has the most prosperous opportunity, as endorsed by the IMF, the OECD, other organizations, and Forbes magazine as well.

How could my colleague, as a supposed Rhodes scholar and an individual who ran Ontario into the ground, be a person of that stature and be so misinformed on Preston Manning, the Reform Party and what we on this side believe are the opportunities that Canadians should have and do have? How could he be so misinformed on those ideas and why—

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order. The hon. member for Toronto Centre.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, in response to the member for Yellowhead, I am an expert on Rhodes, which is why I am not a supposed Rhodes scholar, I actually am a Rhodes scholar.

I would say to the member for Yellowhead that I listened to Mr. Manning over many years and debated with Mr. Manning when both of us were out of Parliament. The one thing about Mr. Manning which always impressed me was that he was a servant of Parliament. He believed in the voice of Parliament. He believed in free votes. He believed in real openness in terms of discussions.

[An hon. member]

Singular legislation.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

He believed in singular legislation which would deal with one subject at a time. He believed in the accountability of Parliament, the accountability of the executive to Parliament.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Opposed closure.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

He would have opposed closure.

He would have opposed this legislation because it is legislation that abuses the power of the executive. The power of the executive is now only in the hands of the Prime Minister. There is no more governor in council. There is simply the power of the Prime Minister, and this is the issue that we are having to deal with. This is the first—

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I see many people rising.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member about his selective recollection. He talked about all these spirits that seem to be missing. I think he forgot to mention the spirit of Christmas past.

There was a lot of mythology about a former government that he wanted to recollect. I remember the days of good old Liberal freedom and some of the members over there do as well under a former prime minister.

In the 37th Parliament when I was first elected, I remember being at committee and seeing members who had heard testimony pulled when it came time to vote on the outcomes and conclusions of that committee hearing and replaced by members who had not heard the testimony. I also remember a former Liberal prime minister who wanted to override his members' freedoms of religion and conscience because he had made a decision on a moral issue that he wanted to decide for all of his members.

I want to ask the member if the good old days of Liberal government were actually the good old days of the member's selective memory.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would say to my colleague from Nanaimo—Alberni that I could not help noticing it took a while for his light to go on.

We all have memories and whether they are selective or not, I do not know. I am sure he has notes to back up what he said and file books on the question.

I have led a government. Of course, when one is in government one has to make some difficult choices. We all recognize the discipline of Parliament. I say it with great respect to the hon. member that the Canadian people are increasingly infuriated by the inability of parliamentarians to talk to one another in a civil way, to have a civil dialogue about what they are hearing. The government cannot, in one single piece of legislation, get rid of the entire Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and change it whole-hog, change all the fisheries regulations—

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. Unfortunately, time has run out.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Oakville.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was listening to the member for Toronto Centre and I would have liked the chance to ask him a question.

He said it is an authoritarian government now. I lived in Ontario under his government when he was premier of Ontario. He brought in the most restrictive, backward labour legislation in the history of Canada. It basically tore up every labour contract in the public sector in Ontario. I wanted to ask him how much freedom his caucus had at that time. How did he tie them to chairs, and why was it okay then?

The member talked about contracts. We should think about the social contract, his creation, a monstrosity that abolished the rights of collective bargaining. Then the member for Toronto Centre wrote a book and blamed it on the public sector unions. Then the Liberal Party appointed him as its interim leader. I do not know if someone wants to talk about that.

If we ask the NDP and the Liberals what they cherish most about being a Canadian—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I would ask for order in the House and to allow the member for Oakville to speak without being heckled or interrupted. The member who spoke previously said that it is important to speak to one another in a civil way and allow for civil debate. For the remaining time, I would ask for some civility and some respect.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Madam Speaker, if we ask the NDP and the Liberals what they cherish most about being Canadian, inevitably we would hear about our social programs: the Canada pension plan, OAS, our health care system, employment insurance and GIS. They fall all over each other taking credit for these programs. “We are the party of health care,” say the Liberals. The NDP say, “No, we are the party that created health care,” in talking about the former premier of Saskatchewan, Tommy Douglas, “We gave Canadians the health care system”.

Of course, it was Canadians who decided that they wanted to have a publicly funded health care system. No party gave them anything. Canadians work hard and pay taxes to support that system.

What we never hear about from members on the other side is that Tommy Douglas needed a partner in the federal government to finance public health care, someone who looked out for ordinary people. That partner was a small-town lawyer from Prince Albert, Saskatchewan. They do not talk about that because it does not support their version of history, their myth that only the NDP care about people.

Members know who that leader was, and he was a Conservative prime minister. It was John Diefenbaker, the same man who cared about the rights of minorities so much that he introduced the first bill in Canada's history, the Canadian Bill of Rights, to protect equal rights for all Canadians, 22 years before our Constitution was adopted.

Being a Conservative, John Diefenbaker supported health care reform for publicly funded health care, but would never have allowed government spending to grow to a point where debt and deficit put that very system in jeopardy. That is what this budget is about. The only way to maintain the programs that Canadians cherish, our health care system, the Canada pension plan and the others, is to be absolutely certain they are fully funded. That means economic growth is no option for Canada.

My constituents in Oakville understand that. Economic growth is essential. It is critical to our future if we want to keep those benefits, if we want to maintain our health care system, if we want to hold on to our employment insurance program.

The opposition parties are opposing this budget, they say, because of the process. They are willing to play procedural games to attempt to force the government to back down on its major election commitments. What they are not telling Canadians is that when we vote in Parliament tonight for some 24 hours, they all do not have to be here. They can work in shifts and go for a good night's sleep, while the government members have to be either here or in the lobby with little or no sleep. That is our Conservative commitment.

What they do not realize is that this government will never back down on our election commitments to focus on building our economy and creating new jobs, the jobs of the future for this country. With all our natural resources, that must mean development of the resources, more trade and more innovation.

Canada is on the cusp of tremendous economic growth. This is Canada's time. We are leading the G7 in economic growth. We are leading the world in banking stability. The world needs what Canada has, and not just aerospace excellence, BlackBerrys, or telecommunications expertise; they need our nickel, gold, diamonds, uranium and rare earth metals.

This bill would provide for superior and predictable environmental reviews so that investors worldwide would know that Canada is the best place to invest. When they put $100 million on the table to open mines in parts of Canada, those mines would not be held in limbo while environmentalists from other countries did their utmost to hold things up for years and years on end. Those environmentalists, by the way, usually already have a job or a pension.

Trade is Canada's manifest destiny. That is where the wealth of the future will come from to pay for our social programs. There are over $500 billion in new projects coming to Canada by 2020, but there is a big if in that projection, and that is if the conditions for investment in Canada remain positive, if the budget bill is implemented, if it applies as well to our cherished social programs. They will only exist in 2020 if Canada's economy grows.

Yet, members of the no development party have voted against every single trade deal we have negotiated because their union bosses told them to. The NDP's debt of gratitude to the big unions is so powerful its members are voting against any measure that we introduce to bring in new investment, and that includes measures to improve productivity. The NDP are stuck in the old rhetoric from the 1960s, the old labour paradigms of us versus them, dividing Canadians east against west, union member versus private sector. They are the party of the past.

Our Conservative government is moving forward. Moving forward includes not just a balanced budget and new trade, but innovation. Once implemented, the budget will invest over $1 billion in innovation for our country, and there is no better way to increase our productivity that is essential to pay for the social programs the NDP claims to value.

Canada has been a source of innovation for over a hundred years. There is a list as long as my arm of Canadian innovations and inventions that have revolutionized the way we conduct business, communicate, heal the sick and create economic growth. The easiest example I can point to is the one that most parliamentarians carry around, the BlackBerry. I can remember when it first hit the market and the fanfare for its revolutionary design in conducting day-to-day business.

There are many other examples such as the telephone, the Canadarm, the zipper, the pace maker, and I have to mention two inventions that some Canadians value the most, the snow blower and the snowplow.

Canadians have proven time and time again that innovation can literally save lives and improve the way we live, while creating more jobs. Our government understands this and is taking action to plant over $1 billion of seed money into our scientific fields and help our innovators also deliver world-class research.

We are committing $500 million for venture capital. We are supporting innovation in science and technology by providing $37 million annually to Canada's granting councils. We are injecting $60 million to Genome Canada, $10 million to the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, $500 million to the Canada Foundation for Innovation and to the chagrin of the opposition, there are even more measures in the budget that would make Canada a pinnacle of innovation.

We are increasing our direct support for business innovation. That includes $110 million per year to the Industrial Research Assistance Program, administered by the National Research Council. The funding will also help expand the services offered by the NRC, like the industrial technology advisors.

There are $95 million dollars over three years and $40 million per year ongoing, which will make the Canadian innovation commercialization program permanent and a pillar of support for innovation businesses.

Finally, $14 million has been allocated to support the Industrial Research Development internship program, which would place hundreds more of our brilliant Ph.D. students into practical research internships with Canadian businesses.

What does all this demonstrate? It demonstrates that under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Canada is proving we can achieve economic growth, while balancing our budget without raising taxes.

That is the dream of every country in Europe, most of whom—

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As a measure of respect, we ask that a member not use the name of a member in the House of Commons. He just referred to the Prime Minister as Mr. H.

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I think the member is aware of the rule to not allude by name, but simply by title.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am so glad the members across are paying such close attention. I thank them for that.

That formula is also the dream of our American friends whose deficit this year will hit $1.5 trillion.

Canada is leading the world under this government to grow our economy to ensure our social programs are sustainable. The budget must be implemented to do that. That is why every member of the House should vote for it. The opposition members should drop their House of Commons tactics and tricks now and vote for this bill.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, I know that my colleague focused on the fact that this budget will spur job creation and growth in Canada, but I would like to ask him a specific question about employment equity, an issue that I hope he takes to heart.

Clause 602 of Bill C-38 deletes a section of the Employment Equity Act that required contractors to abide by the principle of employment equity in the federal contractors program. This will have an impact on access to employment for women, people with disabilities, aboriginals and visible minorities. Since 1986, over 1,000 audits have been carried out as part of this program.

Can the member tell me how deleting a clause that ensures fair treatment for women with respect to federal contracts will create jobs and promote economic growth in Canada?

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Madam Speaker, our party's commitment to employment equity is unshakable and we have moved to improve employment equity. The best way to improve life for all Canadians is by improving the economy.

Day after day in the House we hear the NDP and the Liberals propose expansion of programs and new programs that are unaffordable, without taking more money off the paycheques of Canadians. There is always a good reason for every program, but we never hear any ideas about how to get things done without bigger spending and higher taxes. They are a one trick pony. They are against everything we do to build the wealth we need to pay for our social programs. They fight the trade we need. They fight development. They want to close down entire industries. They would shut down the oil sands, throwing 600,000 Canadians out of work.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, you, parliamentarians and, frankly, the viewing public need to know that what has been said by the member opposite is completely inaccurate, particularly with respect to the Conservatives' investment in innovation.

Researchers are heading south now because of the government's lack of commitment to innovation. I have heard from farmers and industry across Canada, because it cut one of the most important programs, the Canadian agricultural adaptation program, tens of millions of dollars deployed to regions across Canada, given to projects that are identified by people in those regions. This program will be gone by 2014, and he has the gall to stand and talk about how the government is investing in innovation when in fact the opposite is true.

I would ask the member to stand and apologize for misleading Parliament.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have heard many times in the House from the minister that no government in Canada's history has invested more money in research and development and innovation. In this budget, we want to add $1.1 billion to that investment.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Oakville talked about investment. I hope he is not so blinded by ideology and talking points.

The member is from Oakville and knows about the car business and the role of the unions. How can he say that the unions are opposed to investment? Was it not the auto workers who insisted that the car companies invest more money and asked the government to ensure that more money was invested? Did these unions even give up wages and benefits in order to encourage investment?

Could the member take off the blinders and recognize that what he has said is just not true?

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, realistically, what the unions in Canada are opposed to is change. Contrary to what most people think, the unions are the most reactive group in society. They are opposed to change. They see change as a threat. They should not.

I know the government invested money in the Ford plant in Oakville. It built a $1 billion Flex line four or five years ago. The Flex line is so busy at Ford now, the folks in the CAW are working 10-hour shifts a day. There are two 10-hour shifts going back-to-back every day, building the MKX, the Ford Edge, et cetera. The union members are doing extremely well in Oakville based on the investment from the auto innovation fund from this government.

The same has happened in Windsor. Ford came to the government and asked for some money to invest, $150 million, to create a new engine plant in Windsor—