Bill C-45 (Historical)

Jobs and Growth Act, 2012

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

Part 1 implements certain income tax measures and related measures proposed in the March 29, 2012 budget. Most notably, it
(a) amends the rules relating to Registered Disability Savings Plans (RDSPs) by
(i) replacing the 10-year repayment rule applying to withdrawals with a proportional repayment rule,
(ii) allowing investment income earned in a Registered Education Savings Plan (RESP) to be transferred on a tax-free basis to the RESP beneficiary’s RDSP,
(iii) extending the period that RDSPs of beneficiaries who cease to qualify for the Disability Tax Credit may remain open in certain circumstances,
(iv) amending the rules relating to maximum and minimum withdrawals, and
(v) amending certain RDSP administrative rules;
(b) includes an employer’s contributions to a group sickness or accident insurance plan in an employee’s income in certain circumstances;
(c) amends the rules applicable to retirement compensation arrangements;
(d) amends the rules applicable to Employees Profit Sharing Plans;
(e) expands the eligibility for the accelerated capital cost allowance for clean energy generation equipment to include a broader range of bioenergy equipment;
(f) phases out the Corporate Mineral Exploration and Development Tax Credit;
(g) phases out the Atlantic Investment Tax Credit for activities related to the oil and gas and mining sectors;
(h) provides that qualified property for the purposes of the Atlantic Investment Tax Credit will include certain electricity generation equipment and clean energy generation equipment used primarily in an eligible activity;
(i) amends the Scientific Research and Experimental Development (SR&ED) investment tax credit by
(i) reducing the general SR&ED investment tax credit rate from 20% to 15%,
(ii) reducing the prescribed proxy amount, which taxpayers use to claim SR&ED overhead expenditures, from 65% to 55% of the salaries and wages of employees who are engaged in SR&ED activities,
(iii) removing the profit element from arm’s length third-party contracts for the purpose of the calculation of SR&ED tax credits, and
(iv) removing capital from the base of eligible expenditures for the purpose of the calculation of SR&ED tax incentives;
(j) introduces rules to prevent the avoidance of corporate income tax through the use of partnerships to convert income gains into capital gains;
(k) clarifies that transfer pricing secondary adjustments are treated as dividends for the purposes of withholding tax imposed under Part XIII of the Income Tax Act;
(l) amends the thin capitalization rules by
(i) reducing the debt-to-equity ratio from 2:1 to 1.5:1,
(ii) extending the scope of the thin capitalization rules to debts of partnerships of which a Canadian-resident corporation is a member,
(iii) treating disallowed interest expense under the thin capitalization rules as dividends for the purposes of withholding tax imposed under Part XIII of the Income Tax Act, and
(iv) preventing double taxation in certain circumstances when a Canadian resident corporation borrows money from its controlled foreign affiliate;
(m) imposes, in certain circumstances, withholding tax under Part XIII of the Income Tax Act when a foreign-based multinational corporation transfers a foreign affiliate to its Canadian subsidiary, while preserving the ability of the Canadian subsidiary to undertake expansion of its Canadian business; and
(n) phases out the Overseas Employment Tax Credit.
Part 1 also implements other selected income tax measures. Most notably, it introduces tax rules to accommodate Pooled Registered Pension Plans and provides that income received from a retirement compensation arrangement is eligible for pension income splitting in certain circumstances.
Part 2 amends the Excise Tax Act and the Jobs and Economic Growth Act to implement rules applicable to the financial services sector in respect of the goods and services tax and harmonized sales tax (GST/HST). They include rules that allow certain financial institutions to obtain pre-approval from the Minister of National Revenue of methods used to determine their liability in respect of the provincial component of the HST, that require certain financial institutions to have fiscal years that are calendar years, that require group registration of financial institutions in certain cases and that provide for changes to a rebate of the provincial component of the HST to certain financial institutions that render services to clients that are outside the HST provinces. This Part also confirms the authority under which certain GST/HST regulations relating to financial institutions are made.
Part 3 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to provide the legislative authority to share with provinces and territories taxes in respect of specified investment flow-through (SIFT) entities — trusts or partnerships — under section 122.1 and Part IX.1 of the Income Tax Act, consistent with the federal government’s proposal on the introduction of those taxes. It also provides the legislative authority to share with provinces and territories the tax on excess EPSP amounts imposed under Part XI.4 of the Income Tax Act, consistent with the measures proposed in the March 29, 2012 budget. It also allows the Minister of Finance to request from the Minister of National Revenue information that is necessary for the administration of the sharing of taxes with the provinces and territories.
Part 4 enacts and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 4 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act, the Insurance Companies Act and the Jobs and Economic Growth Act as a result of amendments introduced in the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act to allow certain public sector investment pools to directly invest in a federally regulated financial institution.
Division 2 of Part 4 amends the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 to permit the incorporation by reference into regulations of all Canadian modifications to an international convention or industry standard that are also incorporated by reference into the regulations, by means of a mechanism similar to that used by many other maritime nations. It also provides for third parties acting on the Minister of Transport’s behalf to set fees for certain services that they provide in accordance with an agreement with that Minister.
Division 3 of Part 4 amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to, among other things, provide for a limited, automatic stay in respect of certain eligible financial contracts when a bridge institution is established. It also amends the Payment Clearing and Settlement Act to facilitate central clearing of standardized over-the-counter derivatives.
Division 4 of Part 4 amends the Fisheries Act to amend the prohibition against obstructing the passage of fish and to provide that certain amounts are to be paid into the Environmental Damages Fund. It also amends the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act to amend the definition of Aboriginal fishery and another prohibition relating to the passage of fish. Finally, it provides transitional provisions relating to authorizations issued under the Fisheries Act before certain amendments to that Act come into force.
Division 5 of Part 4 enacts the Bridge To Strengthen Trade Act, which excludes the application of certain Acts to the construction of a bridge that spans the Detroit River and other works and to their initial operator. That Act also establishes ancillary measures. It also amends the International Bridges and Tunnels Act.
Division 6 of Part 4 amends Schedule I to the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act to reflect changes made to the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund as a result of the 2010 Quota and Governance Reforms. The amendments pertain to the rules and regulations of the Fund’s Executive Board and complete the updating of that Act to reflect those reforms.
Division 7 of Part 4 amends the Canada Pension Plan to implement the results of the 2010-12 triennial review, most notably, to clarify that contributions for certain benefits must be made during the contributory period, to clarify how certain deductions are to be determined for the purpose of calculating average monthly pensionable earnings, to determine the minimum qualifying period for certain late applicants for a disability pension and to enhance the authority of the Review Tribunal and the Pension Appeals Board. It also amends the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act to enhance the authority of the Social Security Tribunal.
Division 8 of Part 4 amends the Indian Act to modify the voting and approval procedures in relation to proposed land designations.
Division 9 of Part 4 amends the Judges Act to implement the Government of Canada’s response to the report of the fourth Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission regarding salary and benefits for federally appointed judges. It also amends that Act to shorten the period in which the Government of Canada must respond to a report of the Commission.
Division 10 of Part 4 amends the Canada Labour Code to
(a) simplify the calculation of holiday pay;
(b) set out the timelines for making certain complaints under Part III of that Act and the circumstances in which an inspector may suspend or reject such complaints;
(c) set limits on the period that may be covered by payment orders; and
(d) provide for a review mechanism for payment orders and notices of unfounded complaint.
Division 11 of Part 4 amends the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act to transfer the powers and duties of the Merchant Seamen Compensation Board to the Minister of Labour and to repeal provisions that are related to the Board. It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 12 of Part 4 amends the Customs Act to strengthen and streamline procedures related to arrivals in Canada, to clarify the obligations of owners or operators of international transport installations to maintain port of entry facilities and to allow the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to require prescribed information about any person who is or is expected to be on board a conveyance.
Division 13 of Part 4 amends the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act to transfer the powers and functions of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission to the Minister of Health and to repeal provisions of that Act that are related to the Commission. It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 14 of Part 4 amends the Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act to reflect changes made to Chapter 17 of the Agreement on Internal Trade. It provides primarily for the enforceability of orders to pay tariff costs and monetary penalties made under Chapter 17. It also repeals subsection 28(3) of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act.
Division 15 of Part 4 amends the Employment Insurance Act to provide a temporary measure to refund a portion of employer premiums for small businesses. An employer whose premiums were $10,000 or less in 2011 will be refunded the increase in 2012 premiums over those paid in 2011, to a maximum of $1,000.
Division 16 of Part 4 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to provide for an electronic travel authorization and to provide that the User Fees Act does not apply to a fee for the provision of services in relation to an application for an electronic travel authorization.
Division 17 of Part 4 amends the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act to remove the age limit for persons from outside the federal public administration being appointed or continuing as President or as a director of the Corporation.
Division 18 of Part 4 amends the Navigable Waters Protection Act to limit that Act’s application to works in certain navigable waters that are set out in its schedule. It also amends that Act so that it can be deemed to apply to certain works in other navigable waters, with the approval of the Minister of Transport. In particular, it amends that Act to provide for an assessment process for certain works and to provide that works that are assessed as likely to substantially interfere with navigation require the Minister’s approval. It also amends that Act to provide for administrative monetary penalties and additional offences. Finally, it makes consequential and related amendments to other Acts.
Division 19 of Part 4 amends the Canada Grain Act to
(a) combine terminal elevators and transfer elevators into a single class of elevators called terminal elevators;
(b) replace the requirement that the operator of a licensed terminal elevator receiving grain cause that grain to be officially weighed and officially inspected by a requirement that the operator either weigh and inspect that grain or cause that grain to be weighed and inspected by a third party;
(c) provide for recourse if an operator does not weigh or inspect the grain, or cause it to be weighed or inspected;
(d) repeal the grain appeal tribunals;
(e) repeal the requirement for weigh-overs; and
(f) provide the Canadian Grain Commission with the power to make regulations or orders with respect to weighing and inspecting grain and the security that is to be obtained and maintained by licensees.
It also amends An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act and to Repeal the Grain Futures Act as well as other Acts, and includes transitional provisions.
Division 20 of Part 4 amends the International Interests in Mobile Equipment (aircraft equipment) Act and other Acts to modify the manner in which certain international obligations are implemented.
Division 21 of Part 4 makes technical amendments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 and amends one of its transitional provisions to make that Act applicable to designated projects, as defined in that Act, for which an environmental assessment would have been required under the former Act.
Division 22 of Part 4 provides for the temporary suspension of the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board Act and the dissolution of the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board. Consequently, it enacts an interim Employment Insurance premium rate-setting regime under the Employment Insurance Act and makes amendments to the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board Act, the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act and Schedule III to the Financial Administration Act.
Division 23 of Part 4 amends the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Public Service Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act and makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
The Canadian Forces Superannuation Act is amended to change the limitations that apply in respect of the contribution rates at which contributors are required to pay as a result of amendments to the Public Service Superannuation Act.
The Public Service Superannuation Act is amended to provide that contributors pay no more than 50% of the current service cost of the pension plan. In addition, the pensionable age is raised from 60 to 65 in relation to persons who become contributors on or after January 1, 2013.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act is amended to change the limitations that apply in respect of the contribution rates at which contributors are required to pay as a result of amendments to the Public Service Superannuation Act.
Division 24 of Part 4 amends the Canada Revenue Agency Act to make section 112 of the Public Service Labour Relations Act applicable to the Canada Revenue Agency. That section makes entering into a collective agreement subject to the Governor in Council’s approval. The Division also amends the Canada Revenue Agency Act to require that the Agency have its negotiating mandate approved by the President of the Treasury Board and to require that it consult the President of the Treasury Board before determining certain other terms and conditions of employment for its employees.

Report Stage Motions—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

As I committed to do on November 29, 2012, I am now prepared to provide the House with a more comprehensive ruling on the points of order raised on November 28 by the hon. House leaders for the official opposition and the government regarding the report stage proceedings on Bill C-45, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures.

In making their interventions, both House leaders made two kinds of arguments. First, they made what the Chair would characterize as strictly technical procedural points related to the mechanics of report stage for Bill C-45. At the same time, they shared other views with the House on broader issues, such as the role of the Speaker in general and in relation to report stage, the role of the House and of the Speaker in a majority setting, and the role and rights of independent members in relation to report stage.

In its earlier ruling on some of the purely procedural matters raised in these points of order, the Chair outlined the rationale for its selection for debate and grouping for voting purposes of motions at report stage of Bill C-45, in particular motions to delete. Motions to delete were a preoccupation for both House leaders: the opposition House leader wanted the Speaker to select them all and allow separate votes on all of them, while the government House leader did not want me to select any of them, to avoid votes altogether.

As I explained to the House on November 29, there are several precedents to justify not only the selection of motions to delete for debate at report stage but also to justify their grouping for voting purposes. These are long-standing practices of the House.

References made by the opposition House leader to rulings by Speakers Jerome and Fraser, while of interest, failed to take into account the evolution of our procedures as they relate to report stage, particularly the very clear direction included in the notes to Standing Orders 76(5) and 76.1(5) since 2001. These notes outline the desire of the House to circumscribe report stage and instruct the Speaker to select motions for debate in accordance with certain criteria to ensure that report stage is not a mere repetition of the committee stage.

As I stated in my ruling on November 29, Debates, page 12611:

In the absence of any specific guidance from the House with regard to motions to delete and other matters raised in the points of order, the Speaker cannot unilaterally modify the well-established current practice.

Despite the brevity of the ruling, the Chair believes it puts to rest any ambiguity that may have been perceived with regard to the Chair's approach to the fundamental procedural aspects of selection and voting processes as they relate to motions at report stage.

With regard to the broader issues raised by the two House leaders, the Chair intends to address them thematically, beginning with a discussion on the role of the Speaker.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, at page 307, states that it is the duty of the Speaker:

…to ensure that public business is transacted efficiently and that the interests of all parts of the House are advocated and protected against the use of arbitrary authority. It is in this spirit that the Speaker, as the chief servant of the House, applies the rules. The Speaker is the servant, neither of any part of the House nor of any majority in the House, but of the entire institution and serves the best interests of the House...

O'Brien and Bosc further states that:

Despite the considerable authority of the office, the Speaker may exercise only those powers conferred upon him or her by the House, within the limits established by the House itself.

Speaker Milliken provided useful insight into this role when on April 27, 2010, on page 2039 of Debates, he stated:

—the Chair is always mindful of the established precedents, usages, traditions and practices of the House and of the role of the Chair in their ongoing evolution.

This not only confirms that it is not just written rules from which the Speaker’s authority is legitimately derived, as suggested by the opposition House leader, but that the evolutionary nature of procedure must be taken into account. It was on this basis of the House’s longstanding acceptance, and in fact expectations, of the practices at report stage, in conjunction with the need for adaptation to the current context, that the amendments for Bill C-45 were grouped for debate and voting purposes in the manner that they were.

Nor does the role of the Speaker in this regard vary from Parliament to Parliament, as has been suggested by the government House leader, who said:

It may be justifiable in a minority Parliament for the Chair to accept any questions for the House to decide, because it is difficult to predict the intentions of the majority of members. This is not the case in a majority Parliament in general.

Let me be clear: the Speaker does not make decisions based on who is in control of the House. Report stage motions are not, and never have been, selected for debate and grouped for voting on the basis of who the Chair thinks might win the vote on them. This is why, in the case of Bill C-45, the Chair rejected the proposal made by the government House leader that I group certain motions, to use his words, “in a manner that recognizes the anticipated will of the House”.

The Chair is and will continue to be guided by procedural imperatives in all of its decisions, not by somehow substituting the Speaker’s prediction of the likely outcome of a vote for the expressed will of the House itself.

This brings me to a discussion of the role of the House as a whole.

The role of the House in the legislative process must be seen in the larger context of the accountability of the executive branch to the elected members of the legislative branch. Speaker Milliken, in a ruling given on April 27, 2010, which can be found at page 2039 of Debates, stated:

In a system of responsible government, the fundamental right of the House of Commons to hold the government to account for its actions is an indisputable privilege and in fact an obligation.

He continued:

…it is why that right is manifested in numerous procedures of the House, from the daily question period to the detailed examination by committees of estimates, to reviews of the accounts of Canada, to debate, amendments, and votes on legislation.

The House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, at page 250, puts into context how our practices have attempted to strike an appropriate balance between government and opposition. It states that:

—it remains true that parliamentary procedure is intended to ensure that there is a balance between the government's need to get its business through the House, and the opposition's responsibility to debate that business without completely immobilizing the proceedings of the House. In short, debate in the House is necessary, but it should lead to a decision in a reasonable time.

The underlying principles these citations express are the cornerstones of our parliamentary system. They enshrine the ancient democratic tradition of allowing the minority to voice its views and opinions in the public square and, in counterpoint, of allowing the majority to put its legislative program before Parliament and have it voted upon.

In advocating a much stricter approach to the report stage on Bill C-45, the government House leader seemed to argue that the existence of a government majority meant that the outcome of proceedings on the bill was known in advance, that somehow this justified taking a new approach to decision-making by the House and that anything short of that would constitute a waste of the House's time.

This line of reasoning, taken to its logical end, might lead to conclusions that trespass on important foundational principles of our institution, regardless of its composition. Speaker Milliken recognized this when, on March 29, 2007, at page 8136 of Debates, he stated:

…neither the political realities of the moment nor the sheer force of the numbers should force us to set aside the values inherent in the parliamentary conventions and procedures by which we govern our deliberations.

Speaker Fraser on October 10, 1989, at page 4461 of the Debates of the House of Commons, also reminded the House that decisions on legislation are for the House alone to make, stating that:

…we are a parliamentary democracy, not a so-called executive democracy, nor a so-called administrative democracy.

I would now like to turn my attention to the issue of the role and rights of independent members in the context of report stage.

While acknowledging that some accommodation for the participation of independent members was necessary, the government House leader was critical of the current state of affairs, which he claims can allow a single independent member, as the government House leader put it, “to hold the House hostage in a voting marathon”.

As all members know, this year the House has had to deal with thousands of report stage motions when considering the two budget implementation bills, which resulted, in the case of Bill C-38, in around-the-clock voting. While this is not unprecedented, it is the first time it has happened since the rules governing report stage were changed in 2001. As is often the case in the midst of such consuming procedural challenges, frustration surfaces, our practices are examined and remedies are proposed.

As I have indicated, the note to Standing Orders 76(5) and 76.1(5) already provides guidance to the Chair with regard to the selection of amendments at report stage, and in particular, states the following:

For greater certainty, the purpose of this Standing Order is, primarily, to provide Members who were not members of the committee, with an opportunity to have the House consider specific amendments they wish to propose.

It is no secret that independent members do not sit on committees in the current Parliament. In light of recent report stage challenges and the frustrations that have resurfaced, the Chair would like to point out the opportunities and mechanisms that are at the House's disposal to resolve these issues to the satisfaction of all members.

The Standing Orders currently in place offer committees wide latitude to deal with bills in an inclusive and thorough manner that would balance the rights of all members. In fact, it is neither inconceivable nor unprecedented for committees to allow members, regardless of party status, permanently or temporarily, to be part of their proceedings, thereby opening the possibility for the restoration of report stage to its original purpose.

For inspiration on the possibilities, members need only to remember that there are several precedents where independent members were made members of standing committees. Short of that, there is no doubt that any number of procedural arrangements could be developed that would ensure that the amendments that independent members wish to propose to legislation could be put in committee.

Thus, it is difficult for the Chair to accept the argument that current report stage practices and rules are somehow being used in an untoward manner by independent members when simple and straightforward solutions are not being explored. Were a satisfactory mechanism found that would afford independent members an opportunity to move motions to move bills in committee, the Chair has no doubt that its report stage selection process would adapt to the new reality.

In the meantime, as all honourable members know, and as is stated at page 307 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition:

It is the duty of the Speaker to act as the guardian of the rights and privileges of Members and of the House as an institution.

Accordingly, unless and until new satisfactory ways of considering the motions of all members to amend bills in committee are found, the Chair intends to continue to protect the rights of independent members to propose amendments at report stage.

Finally, as we prepare to adjourn for the Christmas holidays, the Chair invites all members to reflect on how best to strengthen public confidence in this institution and on how best to balance the competing interests with which we will always grapple.

I thank all hon. members for their attention.

Aboriginal Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, the first nations of northwestern Ontario are concerned that their rights have been trampled by Bill C-45, the government's omnibus budget bill. Concerns include leasing of reserve land, on-reserve voting rights and scrapping the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which reduced protection of millions of our lakes and rivers to less than 200. No longer protected are northwestern Ontario rivers like the Kaministiquia, or the Nipigon River, home of the largest speckled trout in the world.

Chiefs point out the Prime Minister promised that his government would never approve unilateral changes to the Indian Act. They are right. The government has not adequately consulted with first nations. However, neither has the Prime Minister consulted with scientists, academics, small businesses, Canadian workers, NGOs, provincial premiers, or Parliament, including his own backbenchers, so first nations chiefs are in good company.

The PM does seem to consult frequently and widely with CEOs of banks, foreign oil companies and dictators of communist countries.

Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-37 and the question of the victim surcharge. If passed, this legislation will double the amount of the federal victim surcharge and will also remove the possibility of judicial discretion to waive the surcharge in cases where it will result in undue hardship on an offender or on his or her dependants.

I will begin by reiterating that everyone in the House supports the funding of victim services. There is no debate on this issue of indemnification. The policy question is how best to do so and even a cursory analysis of Bill C-37 reflects a deeply flawed policy approach that will have prejudicial fallout, particularly for the most vulnerable of Canadians.

Before addressing my particular concerns over the policy behind this legislation, I will make a brief mention of alternatives. The premise of the government at first with respect to this bill was that victim services needed increased funding from the federal government. We on this side of the House do not disagree. We support the direct funding of such efforts through grant making and the like. The issue is that the question, “should more money go to this?” is not the question that is before us now.

Just last week, the House voted on budget Bill C-45. Canadians may be interested to know that this legislation does not use the word “victim” even once. This is perhaps unsurprising since the budget speech did not use the word “victim” once. My point here is not to suggest that the government does not fund victim services. The point is that if the objective were truly to ensure adequate funding for such services, it would seem that the budget would be the most logical place in which to show support for this notion and through which to disburse funds on a matter that the Conservatives consistently characterize as a priority.

Regrettably, the government has not chosen to make direct funding of victim services part of its budget legislation. Instead, it has proposed to increase funding through the doubling of the surcharge amount.

Yet, as was noted at second reading, and as was further elucidated in the witness testimony before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the doubling is not based on adequate consultations with relevant stakeholders and, in particular, provincial attorneys general. Indeed, the government has not provided any evidence-based foundation that the doubling of the surcharge is sufficient to provide sustainable services for victims of crime in all provinces and territories, which would be something that we would all seek to see.

During our first committee meeting, I raised this concern with the Minister of Justice, noting that when I was minister of justice in 2005, the then attorney general of Manitoba had recommended that the surcharge amount be raised from 15% of any fine imposed to 20%, an increase of only 5%. Recall that the bill before us today would double the surcharge amount in all cases. While I am well aware that circumstances can be expected to have changed since 2005, as has the attorney general of Manitoba, it seemed more than appropriate to ask the minister what input he had received from his provincial counterparts in this regard.

The minister did not provide specifics regarding amounts and percentages but did state, in response to a similar question from a colleague:

Again, I believe this will be well received. These funds will go straight into provincial coffers, straight into the programs they have to assist victims of crime. My prediction is that this will be very well received.

Mr. Speaker, the minister's projections, to paraphrase him, are not an adequate consultation process.

Did he raise this issue with his provincial counterparts? When did he discuss it with the Quebec justice minister? When did he raise it with Nunavut's justice minister?

There is no need to be minister or clairvoyant to understand that these two jurisdictions have different needs. What did the provincial ministers want to know? How are these differences reflected in the bill?

Let us be clear. We know there are disparities. For the year 2006, the most recent year for which such statistics are available, the actual revenue produced by the federal surcharge varied drastically by region, with Quebec taking in approximately $2.2 million in surcharge revenue and Ontario taking in approximately $1.2 million. How do we account for this? How would this legislation take this into account? Indeed, I am returning to my primary question here: How was the determination made to double the surcharge? What was the evidence-based foundation for this?

On this point, I recently received an email from the former ombudsman for victims of crime, Mr. Steve Sullivan, who expressed concern to me with regard to the committee testimony at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights of Ms. Susan O'Sullivan, the current Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime.

Mr. Sullivan was troubled by Ms. O’Sullivan’s contention that her recommendation to double the surcharge amount was itself based on the recommendation of her predecessor Mr. Sullivan. However, Mr. Sullivan stressed that in 2009, during his tenure as ombudsman, he in fact recommended no such thing. Although at the time he supported removing the undue hardship defence, he stressed that he “thought then, as I do now, that it was not appropriate to double fines if judges were waiving fines because of their belief...that offenders could not pay existing fines”. I only raise this to correct the record on behalf of Mr. Sullivan.

At the risk of repeating a recurring theme that I addressed during second reading, the question was raised as to when we would next be back in Parliament to raise the surcharge again. Will this be an annual parliamentary occurrence? Perhaps some provinces view the amount received currently as being sufficient. Without adequate consultation on this legislation, there is no good way to predict, which the minister said hew as prepared to do so, just how soon we will be back here debating it again and whether or not it is having a beneficial impact in the way the government so envisages.

Beyond the problematic approach to legislating without accounting for the different needs of individual provinces and territories, this legislation is seriously flawed in its presupposition that the surcharge ought to be the primary funding source in the interests of victims. Simply put, the surcharge is only imposed upon conviction. The result is that in situations where no suspect is apprehended or where no conviction is obtained because of problems with the evidence, no surcharge will ever be imposed.

There is an example I have mentioned before, but I believe it bears repeating. One of the most common crimes in our country, sexual assault, is one of the least likely to result in a conviction. Indeed, in many cases of sexual assault charges are not even pressed for a variety of reasons, including that these victims are not necessarily comfortable facing their attacker in open court. In these instances, no surcharge will be collected. How does the government propose to help these victims of crime through the mandatory collection of a surcharge if there may never be a conviction secured.

Even if there had been adequate consultation with all provinces and territories and even if this were reflected in the legislation, there would still be good reason to oppose the bill given that it removes the judicial discretion of judges to consider the undue hardship that imposing the surcharge may have on individual defenders or their dependents. Indeed, this aspect of the bill is particularly problematic and counterproductive.

As was observed in witness testimony before our committee by Catherine Latimer of the John Howard Society, this change would result in harsh financial consequences for the many marginalized members of our society: the poor, the mentally ill and low income Canadians, as well as minorities such as aboriginal Canadians, who are already grossly represented within the criminal justice system itself.

The problem is that serious consequences, including incarceration, can result in the failure to pay a court-ordered fine or surcharge. Indeed, the injustice and inequity of a mandatory financial penalty, absent judicial discretion to waive it based on an inability to pay, is not just a matter of my own opinion or the opinion of some Canadians. Indeed, it is the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada, which stated in the case of R. v. Wu, “it is irrational to imprison an offender who does not have the capacity to pay [a fine] on the basis that imprisonment will force [payment]”. In that case, the court further stated, “For the impecunious offenders...imprisonment in default of payment of a fine is not an alternative punishment — he or she does not have any real choice in the matter”.

This bill puts the most vulnerable Canadians in a situation where they may have to face incarceration, not because a court has deemed jail to be the proper punishment warranted by the offence for which they have been convicted, but only because they lack the financial resources to pay the mandatory surcharge. I submit that this is prejudicial and in violation of the law as defined by our nation's highest court.

Further anticipating the consequences of this bill if it were to be adopted, we can expect it to have a disparate impact on Canadians based on their province or territory of residence. Much was made during committee of the particulars of the provincial fine option program, to which I referred briefly earlier in my remarks. Regrettably, the discussion during committee regarding these programs was particularly insufficient and demonstrated a complete lack of understanding by the government in this matter.

The government has defended the removal of judicial discretion to waive the surcharge by arguing that those who are not able to pay can take advantage of provincial fine option programs that allow for the disposal of an individual's surcharge obligation through work or community service. However, as I am sure the members in this place are by now well aware, such programs do not exist in Ontario, British Columbia or Newfoundland and Labrador. Moreover, where they do exist, their availability and eligibility vary drastically.

I would hope that my colleagues in this place would need no explanation as to why I object to legislation that affects Canadians in a discriminatory manner based on where they happen to reside without any reasonable justification.

However, what is particularly troubling was the lack of concern by some of my colleagues during the committee process in this regard. Indeed, one member, noting that the fine option program was clearly a matter of provincial competency, conceded that this was not something the federal government could delve into and went on to observe that it was sufficient that any province could use the funds from the surcharge to implement such a program and that, where no such program exists, other means for enforcing the surcharge might exist.

This line of reasoning, regrettably, entirely misses the point. It is irresponsible for us to pass legislation based on predictions and presumptions about what could happen. Furthermore, the lack of consistency between the provinces and territories in this regard is precisely what would result in a differential prejudicial impact.

The bottom line is that, depending on the specific province or territory, low-income Canadians who are simply not able to meet a surcharge obligation will find themselves disproportionately burdened merely because of financial status and area of residence. Ultimately, one may find himself or herself subject to incarceration for circumstances entirely outside his or her control. I submit that this is prejudicial, inequitable and unacceptable in a free and democratic society.

To conclude my remarks, let me summarize the reasons for my opposition to this legislation.

First, the arbitrariness of the proposed doubling of the surcharge amount must be rejected. The needs of victims vary substantially, as I mentioned, between the provinces and territories.

Second, we must permit judicial discretion and enable judges to consider the specific facts before them, in particular, on the undue hardship that may result in specific instances on either the offender or on his or her dependants.

Third, there are problematic assumptions underlying the government's approach to criminal justice, which considers after-the-fact punitive measures to be an effective means of achieving deterrence, completely ignoring the importance of preventive measures and the need to consider the relationship in various complex social factors in so far as they contribute to both crime and victimization. Indeed, one critical factor that is undeniably related to the problem of crime and recidivism is a cycle of poverty and the marginalization of particular segments of our society. Regrettably, the bill, as it now stands before us, would only exacerbate this problem.

I would like to briefly describe the amendments that I offered at committee, all of which were proposed with the intention of achieving the shared goal of providing support for victims of crime in all provinces and territories and in an effective, sustainable and non-discriminatory fashion. Regrettably, all were rejected, but I believe they deserve discussion here particularly as they may be relevant to our colleagues in the other place during their deliberations in this matter.

My first amendment would have restored the undue hardship defence as it currently exists, but would have implemented a requirement that the court record its reasons for waiving the surcharge in writing. This amendment was directly aimed at improving the surcharge enforcement rate without improperly infringing on the judiciary's authority to consider all the facts before it in a particular instance.

My second amendment would have enabled the court in a jurisdiction where no fine option program existed to suspend the requirement to pay the surcharge based on a finding that the immediate enforcement of the surcharge would result in an undue hardship on the offender or his dependents. This amendment, in line with the Supreme Court decision, would have maintained the mandatory nature of the surcharge in all instances and merely would have enabled the court to suspend the requirement to pay. The surcharge obligation would indeed remain in the event that the individual's financial status should change. Moreover, this amendment would have limited the court's discretion to waive the surcharge to only those jurisdictions where no fine option program was available.

My third amendment would have specifically addressed what I submit should be one of the underlying purposes of criminal justice policy, namely, to prevent recidivism by achieving the rehabilitation of offenders. This amendment would have provided the court with authority to waive the surcharge only in those jurisdictions where no fine option program is available and based on a finding that the requirement to immediately pay would have a negative affect on an individual's rehabilitation. Again, the surcharge obligation would remain should an individual's circumstances change.

My final amendment was intended to codify the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Regina v. Wu, so as to ensure that no Canadian would be subject to imprisonment based on an inability to pay. To be clear, this amendment would not have interfered with the court authority to order incarceration as part of an individual's sentence when so warranted by the specific facts of the case. This amendment would have ensured that neither an individual's financial situation nor the unavailability of a fine option program in a particular jurisdiction would result in incarceration. Put simply, this amendment would have avoided the prejudicial effect of Bill C-37 while preserving its underlying purpose. Despite the fact that this principle has been clarified by the Supreme Court, my amendment was voted down.

The committee process could have produced a version of this bill that accomplished the government's intention and what I am sure is the intention of all members in this place, to ensure the support of victims of crime without prejudicing any Canadians. Regrettably, we are here today to debate the same flawed version of this bill as was sent to committee. Thus, I must oppose the bill, as it is currently written, and urge all members in the House to do the same.

In conclusion, the most effective way to support victims of crime is to propose and promote legislation that prevents victimization in the first place, that seeks to achieve rehabilitation so as to prevent recidivism upon the inevitable return of offenders back into society. Regrettably, we have yet to see justice legislation from the government focusing on prevention, rehabilitation and reintegration, and Bill C-37 would accomplish no such thing. Despite my strong support for legislation that would fund victim services programs, this bill in its current form remains ineffective and will be counterproductive, discriminatory and prejudicial. I therefore will be voting against it.

Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague should know better. He should know that the Conservatives have said time and time again, “Trust us, trust us, once we get it to committee, because this legislation is only the first step....” The Liberals were successful in getting Bill C-45 split out to different committees and they think that was a big win, but not one single amendment was passed at those committees. The Liberals should know most of all that “Trust us” does not cut it. We need action.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to answer that question.

Bill C-45 had 420-odd pages of measures and hardly a single amendment was accepted. If someone writes a 425-page book and gives it to an editor, they are likely to have at least one change every 10 pages, if they are lucky. If that person is an author, they probably have even more.

There is some kind of blind confidence in the legislative, mystical power of the Conservative government that somehow it has the answer to absolutely everything. However, if I think about it, maybe it does not care about making good laws. Maybe the government just cares about the four years it is here, and damn the future. I think the onus—

Aboriginal Affairs

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to file this morning.

The first petition is signed by hundreds of people, particularly aboriginal people, all over Saskatchewan who are objecting to the provisions in Bill C-45 that directly impact upon first nations and aboriginal people.

The petitioners request that the Government of Canada set aside Bill C-45 until due consultation and informed consent is given by those who would be directly impacted by it.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in January the Prime Minister promised to work with first nations and to consult with them before introducing any policy changes. He broke that promise with unilateral changes to the Indian Act in Bill C-45.

On December 10, grassroots organizers of Idle No More will be gathering outside the constituency office of the Prime Minister, demanding more accountability from the government.

During these education funding negotiations, will the minister commit to a clear, open and honest process?

Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very astute observation of the system and the debates.

In the parliamentary system, discussions among the different parties and members of Parliament are important, but committee work is also extremely important. That is the source of some of the frustration. We have tried many times—just look at Bill C-45—to propose amendments that could improve a bill and that often reflect the testimony of the various experts who have appeared before the committees.

We are not pulling these amendments out of nowhere. They are often inspired by different parties—not in the partisan sense—from civil society who share their expertise, their good faith and their opinions.

We hope the government's new year's resolutions will include starting to listen to the amendments we propose.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering for pronouncing the name of my riding correctly, which rarely happens in the House.

Regarding the member's first intervention, I hope he does not want to take away the right of duly elected members on both sides of the House to speak, as is their right at second reading and as we are doing right now. Since the government has a majority, the member knows very well that the bill will go to committee and will be examined in committee.

Our point here is simply that we need to focus on the fact that the committee adopted some of the amendments proposed by the NDP—three, to be specific—yet those amendments did not survive Bill C-45. They were not included in the bill currently before us, Bill C-15. We really want to emphasize that point. We want the government to understand the importance of those issues.

With regard to summary trials, I would remind the hon. member that we heard testimony from retired Colonel Drapeau. We found his testimony to be very powerful. I would remind the House that in 2008-09, some 1,865 cases were dealt with by summary trial, and only 67 cases were tried through court martial. We think this is an extremely important issue. I hope the government will eventually take the NDP's arguments into account and consider our amendments.

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

Mr. Speaker, clearly, we are eventually going to vote at second reading. The bill is very important to the members of the official opposition, the NDP, here in the House. Many of them have expressed their desire to talk about their disappointment with regard to the fact that the amendments adopted by the committee were not included in the bill. That is why we will oppose the bill when we vote on it at second reading.

I would like to point out that, if this bill were important to the government, then it would have been discussed in the House a long time ago. I would like to remind hon. members that right now we are talking about Bill C-15, and we just voted on Bill C-45. It therefore seems that certain issues are more important to the government than others. Unfortunately, this bill does not seem to be one of the government's priorities, since the government waited so long to bring it forward for us to discuss.

Eventually, we will vote on this bill, but I would not want to see the official opposition deprived of their opportunity to speak about it at second reading, because that is their right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

We have quorum right now, and I'm going to begin because we're late starting. I want to thank the witnesses so much for joining us today.

Before we get into the witness presentations, I need to look at two budgets that have not yet passed and which we need to pass.

One is the budget for the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act portion of BillC-45. It's a budget of $1,700. Could I have the committee accept this budget?

Aboriginal Affairs

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have two sets of petitions to table this morning.

The first set of petitions include literally hundreds of signatures primarily from first nations people across Saskatchewan. The petitioners protest the provisions in Bill C-45 that specifically discriminate against aboriginal people.

They call upon Parliament to change its mind with respect to the aboriginal provisions contained, they believe wrongly, in Bill C-45.

[Elwin Hermanson, Chief Commissioner, Canadian Grain Commission]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning. Bonjour. We want to again thank the committee for giving us the opportunity to meet with you today.

Allow me to make a couple of introductions. First of all, I'm Elwin Hermanson, the chief commissioner of the Canadian Grain Commission, and I've been in that position since 2008. I'm from Beechy, Saskatchewan, where I have a farm. I'm joined by Gord Miles, who is the chief operating officer for the commission. He coordinates and oversees the delivery of the programs, services, and activities of our corporate services, industry services, and grain research laboratory divisions.

It's only been a few weeks since we last appeared before this committee. I recall I was in a bit of a rush that day because I had to catch a train. I have lots of time this morning, so that's good.

We mentioned at that time that the grain sector is at a pivotal juncture, when public policies and regulatory structures need to keep pace with the rapid changes in the marketplace. I think that message needs to be reinforced again today to policy-makers and legislators such as yourselves. The government has taken significant steps on this front, first with the removal of the Canadian Wheat Board's single desk, and now with the proposed amendments to the Canada Grain Act.

In this spirit, I'm pleased to inform you that on November 30, the Canadian Grain Commission ended a consultation on proposed changes to our user fees. We are now reviewing the feedback received during consultation, and we propose to implement a new fee schedule on August 1, 2013, which will reflect a more streamlined and cost-effective Canadian Grain Commission.

I'd like to put the commission into context within Canada's grain sector. I'll talk a bit about our mandate, our organization, and our role in the areas of grain quality assurance, grain research, and market access.

The Canadian Grain Commission reports to Parliament through the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the Honourable Gerry Ritz. Our organization is led by three commissioners. As well as myself, there is an assistant chief commissioner and a third commissioner. We are national in scope, with employees across Canada. The amendments proposed in the jobs and growth act will further streamline our operations.

Under the amended Canada Grain Act, the Canadian Grain Commission will continue to be mandated to establish and maintain standards of quality for Canadian grain for both international and domestic markets. We will continue to regulate grain handling in Canada and work to ensure that Canada's grain is a dependable commodity. Our mandate will continue to cover 21 grains. At present, we are funded through a combination of appropriations and user-fee revenues, though going forward we expect our operations to be funded primarily through user fees.

Grain is graded visually by highly trained inspectors. We set grain grades and standards. These have a scientific foundation, based in research conducted in our grain research laboratory . We regularly review standards to ensure their continued relevance. The eastern and western standards committees are a key part of this review. Members include producers, grain handlers, processors, exporters, and representatives from government agencies. The committees consider grading issues and make recommendations to us. Grades are important because they establish grain quality and facilitate fair transactions for producers. They also reflect the end-use characteristics required by our customers and ensure the consistency of product from cargo to cargo and from year to year.

We also play a role in grain safety and grain safety assurance. We screen, monitor, and certify grain shipments to assure that export cargoes meet international safety tolerances. Our laboratory is able to test for pesticide residues, trace elements, mycotoxins, fungi, and moulds.

We also assure that weights are accurate at terminal elevators. The correct weight of grain that is loaded to a vessel is recorded on the certificate final issued at export. Speaking of the certificate final, it indicates the official Canadian Grain Commission grade and weight, and it assures that a cargo meets contract specifications. In 2010-11, we inspected over 30 million tonnes of Canadian grain for export. So far this year, we have inspected 351 vessels of Canadian grain that have gone overseas from various ports in Canada.

Our grain research laboratory, which is located at our national office in Winnipeg, supports quality and grain safety assurance. Our researchers study how grain quality is measured, and they develop new ways to measure grain quality. They also evaluate grain-grading factors. They study new uses for Canadian grain. I can give you as an example the use of durum in Asian noodle products. They develop new technologies and methods for assessing end-use quality, and they also develop new methods for monitoring the safety of Canadian grain.

We take part in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's variety registration process in which new cultivars are evaluated for disease resistance, agronomics, and quality. As part of quality evaluation, our researchers and inspection experts evaluate the end-use functionality of new cultivars. As well, we designate new wheat varieties into a class. Our work helps to ensure that all registered varieties within a class perform consistently for end-users.

When international market issues arise, we provide technical support through our grain research laboratory and our industry services. We are the official government authority with expertise in sampling, grading, grain safety, and laboratory testing processes. Again, I can give you a recent example of our market access support regarding the Triffid incident with Canadian flax. We work with the European Union, Japan, and Brazil to develop protocols for flax shipments to ensure continued access to these important markets.

A big and important part of our mandate is to protect the interests of Canadian grain producers, and we do this through several activities. Through our “subject to inspector's grade and dockage” service, we give producers a way to solve disagreements about the grade they receive at licensed primary elevators.

We also provide producers with access to producer cars to ship their grain. We work with the railways to negotiate for cars, and this gives producers control over the movement of their grain. In 2010-11, we processed applications for just over 14,000 producer cars. This crop year, and we're about halfway through it, we have processed 6,796 applications to date.

We provide payment protection. Briefly, when producers have delivered grain to a licensed primary elevator and they have not yet been paid, they can make a payment claim. We pay eligible claims out of security posted by the licensed elevator. We cannot always guarantee 100% payment for all eligible claims as liabilities may, on occasion, exceed security. However, the amendments proposed in Bill C-45 would improve producer payment protection by creating the opportunity to move to a new insurance-based system under which protection coverage may be improved.

We also provide services like the submitted sample service and the harvest sample program, which give producers important information about their grain, such as grade, dockage, moisture, and protein.

Finally, we serve a variety of clients by providing information to the grain industry. We publish quality data and statistical information, and we maintain current information on our website. I would encourage all members of the committee that if you have a moment or two—and I know you're very busy—to review our website. We think it's an excellent site that contains a lot of very useful information not only for producers and other stakeholders in the industry, but I'm sure for this committee as well.

Also, our experts are available at trade shows, and we provide a lot of tours at our national office for domestic stakeholders and international visitors.

In closing, I'd like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present to you and the standing committee members. The grains sector, as I mentioned, has entered a time of fundamental change. The Canadian Grain Commission is committed to effectively delivering grain quality and safety assurance, quantity assurance, research, and producer protection both now and in the future. We are committed to continued development of new and innovative regulations and policies to serve the interests of producers and the entire grain sector.

It is a pleasure to share that information with you briefly. We're certainly open to any questions from any of the members.

Committees of the House

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you would find agreement to apply the results of the third reading of Bill C-45 to the current motion, with the Conservatives voting yes.

Jobs and Growth Act, 2012

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this bill. As everyone knows, the Liberals will be voting against the bill for many reasons.

I would like to begin by raising a point that I have not yet heard discussed during this debate: the fact that this government is creating a culture of fear.

By that I mean that the government is proposing to fire some 20,000 public servants but some 100,000 public servants have received notice that they might be fired. The effect of that is to create a culture of fear in 100,000 Canadian families. This is a mean-spirited and heartless way to carry out reductions in employment. It causes fear in so many more people than actually will be affected. When we were in government, we were not strangers to expenditure review, but at no point did we arrange the loss of employment in such an unnecessarily cruel way. More often than not, we did it by attrition. Sometimes that was not possible, but we never sent notices to five times the number of people who could lose their jobs to the effect that they might lose their job. That is a particularly reprehensible part of this legislation.

There is a second thing I do not like about this legislation. Canada depends on innovation for productivity growth. Canada's record on private sector expenditure on R and D has been weak compared with that of most other western countries. That is one of the reasons that our productivity growth has been low for decades and why the growth and living standards of the Canadian middle-class has been suffering.

One would have thought that a sensible government might inject measures to promote innovation and research and development expenditures, but the Conservative government has done just the opposite. It reduced by a very significant amount the SR&ED tax credit. The SR&ED tax credit is an extremely valuable tool to encourage research and development, and innovation and productivity growth but, for some inexplicable reason, this has been cut.

There was a proposal, which I do not think is in the budget, to give less in tax credits but more in direct grants to companies. That is a very weird idea coming from a Conservative government because that implies that the government has the wherewithal, the knowledge and the brains to distinguish between winning companies and losing companies. If one were a Conservative, would it not make more sense to use the tax credit, which is neutral and does not imply that government knows best, and let the market and the entrepreneurs decide which companies are winners and which are losers?

This approach taken by the Conservatives is reminiscent of what one might expect from an NDP government, which might well think that government knows best, but instead we have this rather paternalistic approach to how we should run this economy coming from the Conservative side of the House. Maybe that means we need to get back to the Liberals.

There are many other weaknesses in the bill. It would dramatically weaken the laws on waterways and other things. However, I will spend a little time on why I think it is a badly constructed bill. Whether we agree with all the content is one thing, but it is constructed in a sloppy way, which probably reflects the fact that when a government tries to have so many pages of legislation in so little time it is likely to make mistakes.

I will describe three of the mistakes that lead me to think that this is not only a bad bill but also a sloppy bill that will probably need further corrections down the road.

The first point, which I mentioned earlier in a question, is the hiring credit where the government slips in a 7¢ EI premium hike where, in the case of companies that are near their limit, they will be penalized by either hiring more people or paying higher wages. This is a complete slip-up unless the government deliberately set out to hurt small businesses. This is something the government should not have wanted to do. It is an unintended negative consequence of this bill, which is why we brought in an amendment at committee to fix it. However, the government declined to support our amendment.

That is the first mistake the government made. And that is the first reason this bill is poorly constructed, I think.

The second bad thing about the construction of the bill refers to the negative impact on Canada's mining industry. I do not always agree with the Conservatives but I do not think they deliberately set out to destroy Canada's mining industry, so I would say that this is another unintended consequence, because one of the items in the bill would have a potentially serious negative effect on the mining industry.

To make this point, I want to quote from a letter from the Toronto Stock Exchange and the TSX Venture Exchange dated November 14, 2012, which explains clearly the grounds for this concern. The section of the bill concerns tax avoidance and specifically something called foreign affiliate dumping. This is not a quote from the NDP. It is a quote from the Toronto Stock Exchange on why it claims the bill is flawed. The letter reads:

We believe that the Proposed Rules, in their current form, cast too wide a net and risk impacting or diminishing legitimate and entirely appropriate activity by hundreds of publicly listed companies on our markets. Should the rules be introduced without further appropriate amendment, Canada's world-leading position and reputation as a market for resource issuers may be negatively impacted by creating inefficiencies in accessing capital and harming corporate valuations.

Based on our preliminary research, we estimate that in excess of 700 publicly-traded Canadian corporations with operations in a foreign jurisdiction could potentially be inadvertently and inappropriately impacted by the Proposed Rules....

We are extremely concerned that decades of effort to give Canada global leadership in a critical sector of capital markets activity can be impacted by the unadjusted implementation of the Proposed Rules.

That is very clear language. This bill would unintentionally harm some 700 publicly traded Canadian corporations in a sector of the economy, the mining sector, which has been in the past critical to Canada's prosperity and will continue to be critical to our prosperity going forward.

I will read one other quote on this same subject, a letter from the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada, dated October 13, 2012. It reads:

Given the substantial quantum of money required to bring a mining project into production, the proposed provisions will result in an unacceptable level of additional tax risk being added to the undertaking of the development of the project, making it less attractive for foreign investors to invest in such CRICs and consequently adoption of the foreign affiliate dumping proposals as currently drafted will make it extremely difficult for Canadian juniors to finance large projects.

The Conservatives had these letters. They had their own financial analysts. Are they too proud, is there too much hubris to admit that in all those hundreds of pages they might have made one or two slip-ups? There was ample time to fix it. We brought it to their attention but they chose not to fix it. They went blindly ahead with a project that was fundamentally flawed and will wreak serious damage onto one of Canada's key industries.

I can count at least three ways in which the bill is badly constructed.

First of all, this bill is poorly constructed because of the credit I just explained a few moments ago. Second, it is poorly constructed because it is bad for the mining sector, as I just explained. Third, given that the Conservatives made many mistakes in the last bill and those mistakes had to be corrected in this one, I have no doubt that we will continue to find mistakes in the next few months or the next year, and once again, Parliament will be forced to make changes to it.

Let me conclude by saying that I reject this culture of fear when possible dismissal letters are sent to a hundred thousand families and only 20,000 people need to be laid off. This is totally unnecessary and mean-spirited, especially as we approach Christmas. It is also entirely inappropriate for a country like Canada, which has suffered from low innovation in research and productivity, to slash the SR and ED tax credits.

Finally, I would contend that technically this is a badly constructed bill. It could have been amended in simple ways to fix these fundamental deficiencies. However, the Conservatives, perhaps through hubris, perhaps through wanting to amend nothing whatsoever, refused to even consider such amendments. As a consequence, we have flaws in the hiring credit legislation, which will damage some small businesses in the country. We have flaws in the foreign affiliate dumping legislation, which will do serious harm to Canada's mining industry.

Also, given the flawed and sloppy nature of the drafting of the bill, and given that errors were contained in the previous budget implementation bill that had to be corrected this time around, we can be sure that six months from now or one year from now we will see a new bill fixing the errors, perhaps the ones I have mentioned, perhaps many more, that will undoubtedly be contained in Bill C-45.