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.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the same issue over and over again in my constituency office, families who have been seeking reunification, patiently waiting. I am horrified by the change in policy and the moving of the goalposts for so many families that have been doing all the right things, filing all the right papers; they find they have to start all over again.

My question is on the member's last point, on finding omnibus budget bills. In the last number of years the Conservatives have done two omnibus bills per budget. In 2012-2013 we had a spring omnibus budget bill, C-38, and then a fall omnibus budget bill, C-45, then Bill C-60 and now Bill C-4. Each of these monstrous bills has included many aspects that had nothing at all to do with the budget, but were mere expedients for pushing things through the House that much faster.

I wonder if the hon. member knows what the official opposition would do? Could we have House rules to restrict when omnibus bills are legitimate? How would the official opposition deal with this problem?

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-4 is a sad new piece of legislative art from the Conservatives. What a masterpiece.

Much like the three omnibus bills before it—Bill C-38, Bill C-45 and Bill C-60—this fourth bill includes some 70 legislative measures—why not—most of which have very little to do with the budget. The bill even creates two brand-new laws: the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Act and the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board Act.

With this bill, the Conservatives are trying once again to force major changes through Parliament, without letting us do our job.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has already pointed out numerous times that members of Parliament do not have access to the information they need to fulfill their critical role and improve our laws. He had to threaten to take the government to court for the Conservatives to finally bother to reveal their budget cut plan. However, here we are again with another omnibus bill.

The Minister of Finance tabled budget 2013 in Parliament on March 21. The budget cuts thousands of public service jobs and makes cuts to program spending. The budget proposes a host of unwarranted economic austerity measures that do not help Canadians.

Bill C-4 to implement certain provisions of the budget undermines the health and safety protections in place for workers. It is a direct attack on public servants and labour unions. It causes irreparable damage to our research system and puts employment insurance firmly under the minister's control.

I am particularly concerned for the Canadian public and especially for the constituents in my riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and Dorval.

This bill removes from our health and safety officers the authority granted to them under the Canada Labour Code. It significantly weakens the ability of employees to refuse to work in dangerous conditions. It grants virtually all health and safety powers to the minister. This concentration of power in the hands of a minister is very dangerous, especially when we are dealing with a Conservative minister.

When the Conservatives attack the Canada Labour Code, they are attacking something that Canadians worked hard to build over the years to make their working conditions healthier and safer. This is the opposite of progress. This is a step backwards, just like everything else the Conservatives do. They should instead be seeking ways to protect Canadians from having to work in situations that expose them to unacceptable risks. They should protect workers.

I had the opportunity to study occupational health and safety in my university program. I took a course that required students to conduct workplace risk assessments. Therefore, I can say that centralizing everything is exactly the opposite of what companies do to identify risks in order to provide appropriate solutions concerning occupational health and safety.

For all these reasons, the NDP will certainly oppose this proposal, which affects the fundamental rights of workers in terms of occupational health and safety.

Bill C-4 would also make changes that would allow the minister to determine which services are essential in the public service, in such a way that he could well undermine collective bargaining rights.

We know that the Conservatives do not like unions. This is another attack. This is a direct violation of the social dialogue in the public service. By destabilizing the relationship between the negotiating parties, the government is giving itself the means to gag workers in the public service. It is restricting their right to challenge the deterioration of working conditions due to the unjustified cuts imposed by the Conservatives themselves. By slashing jobs, they are creating the conditions for conflict. They now want to ignore the consequences by preventing workers from expressing their frustration and their complaints.

However, some services seem to be less essential than others, particularly when objective scientific results contradict the Conservatives' vision and plans. They fired hundreds of scientists without considering the medium- or long-term consequences of their decision.

Now, Bill C-4 is taking aim at National Research Council Canada and dealing a final blow to our public research system. Well done.

As a final step in their attempt to systematically bleed the labour market dry on the pretense of flexibility, the Conservatives are using Bill C-4 to eliminate the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board and give the Minister of Finance the power to manipulate rates.

Do the Conservatives want to turn their backs on federal responsibility in this area by dumping it onto the provinces or directly onto the public?

Bill C-4 also extends the $1,000 hiring tax credit for small business. I acknowledge that that is a step in the right direction, but it is nowhere near enough. The NDP is looking further ahead and proposing a $2,000 hiring tax credit that would not come out of the employment insurance fund and would help businesses hire and train young workers.

I want to keep talking about small businesses. The Conservatives are going ahead with their $350 million tax hike on labour-sponsored venture capital funds. However, it is well known that venture capital is essential for creating and developing businesses. Just listen to our entrepreneurs. Alain-Jacques Simard, CEO of TeraXion, a Quebec company that specializes in fibre optics, said that the Fonds de solidarité FTQ acted as a catalyst and that since its January 2010 investment, his company's sales have doubled. That is important to remember.

The Conservatives like to remind everybody that they were elected to lower taxes, but not for unions, apparently. That is very strange. Attacking a financing system does not make sense unless it is part of an agenda to do whatever it takes to undermine the economic influence of Canadian workers and unions.

Still on the subject of small businesses, Bill C-4 increases the lifetime capital gains exemption and indexes it. The NDP supports increasing the lifetime capital gains exemption because that will help small business owners. The NDP knows that small businesses create a lot of jobs. However, they create those jobs only in a climate of better economic and regulatory conditions. That is why the NDP would like to see tax incentives to help these businesses hire Canadians.

We can only have a productive debate on these proposals if the Conservatives allow it. The omnibus bill will not make that possible and suggests that the Conservatives are, sadly, not willing to debate. The Conservatives are showing their true colours by attacking workers, public servants, employment insurance and unions. They are not working for Canadian families.

Household debt has reached record levels and is now at 166% of household income. This means that people are spending five months' income every three months, putting them two more months in the hole every five months. The Conservatives have no plan to address the alarming youth unemployment rate.

Bill C-4 is out of touch with what is important to Canadian families. It is a dangerous step backward. This policy is designed to destroy gains made by the middle class. It will force workers and families to pay for services that they have already paid for through their taxes.

This bill, like all of its omnibus predecessors, is a policy instrument designed to systematically destroy the social relationships that Canadians have worked hard to build over the past few decades. It is an intolerable attack on the rights of Canadian workers and Canadian families. The NDP will not stand for it.

The NDP will not support the Conservatives' latest attempt to circumvent parliamentary democracy. We should have the opportunity to debate the many subjects covered in Bill C-4 separately and refer them for study by the relevant committee. The NDP is also opposed to budget 2013 and its implementation bills, including Bill C-4, because they disregard the true priorities of Canadian families: creating good, well-paid jobs, ensuring retirement security, creating job opportunities for youth and creating more affordable living conditions for families.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, to my hon. colleague, perhaps he would go to my website. We did two very detailed analyses on Bill C-45 and Bill C-38, which are available on my website. They deal with how this government is changing the nature of doing business here, and talk to the long-term strategy that the Conservative government has to change the nature of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member has drawn our attention to changes in Bill C-4 that were necessitated by the rush in passing the previous budget implementation bill, the changes that were unintended that caused further tax damage to credit unions.

I am also aware of changes in this new bill, Bill C-4, that will be required because of mistakes made in treating income for fishermen by failing to properly deal with the income for fishermen versus highest weeks, versus their total take for the season.

It seems to me that we can make a very good case as members of the opposition that the Conservative Party mania for refusing amendments and for pushing bills through quickly is forcing Parliament over and over again to go back and pass new legislation months later to fix mistakes. Bill C-45 fixed mistakes that were in Bill C-38. Now Bill C-4 is fixing mistakes that were in Bill C-60.

Could my hon. friend give me any of her thoughts on the problems of holding up the House through passing bills too quickly?

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-4, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures. It was interesting to hear the Conservative House leader talk about the planned deficit reduction and how the Conservatives were ahead by $7 billion. A good question that would be welcomed at some point for the government to answer is exactly how much of that deficit reduction was as a result of money that did not flow to approved programs and services. We have certainly heard from communities that money they expected to see or proposals they had submitted had not been funded, despite the government announcements. Therefore, it would be good for the House to know that.

This bill is the second act to implement budget 2013. It is another budget implementation bill that is about 300 pages. This legislation amends or repeals 70 pieces of legislation. Some of what it tackles is: it strips health and safety officers of their powers and puts nearly all of these powers in the hands of the minister; it significantly weakens the ability of employees to refuse to work in unsafe conditions; it moves to eliminate binding arbitration as a method to resolve disputes in the public service; and it guts Canada's most venerable scientific research institution, the National Research Council.

I want to thank our House leader, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, for raising the fact that once again the government has limited debate. This is the fourth attempt by the Conservatives to evade scrutiny by parliamentarians and the public. In the past we had Bill C-38, Bill C-45 and Bill C-60. Canadians deserve an opportunity to hear a detailed, thorough, in-depth study of such wide-ranging pieces of legislation, yet we have the limiting of the ability of the House to scrutinize the legislation. Why should we care about that?

In the past we saw the government bring forward legislation that had errors in it. Because of the complexity of the legislation and the length of time we had to review it, the government had to bring forward subsequent legislation to correct that.

This legislation is fixing something that happened due to a technical mistake in Bill C-60, which would have doubled the taxation level of credit unions and caisse populaires. In September, tax experts discovered that the changes made in Bill C-60 would result in Quebec taxpayers being overburdened on dividends compared to taxpayers in other provinces.

Because I only have 10 minutes, I will focus on three particular aspects of the legislation.

First, the legislation would reduce the number of permanent members on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.

Second, it would fix the mistakes with respect to the tax hike on credit unions.

Third, it would push ahead the Conservative plan on the $350 million tax hike on labour sponsored venture capital funds.

With respect to veterans, Bill C-4 would reduce the number of permanent members on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board from 28 to 25. What is disappointing is that it was an opportunity for the Conservatives to bring forward separate legislation that looked to improve the Conservative record on veterans affairs. We know the NDP has not always been happy with the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, but simply changing numbers will not improve the situation.

In my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, the veterans office has closed and veterans are now forced to go further afield in order to get the services they require.

Just so Canadians understand a bit about the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, of the 76,446 Canadian Forces' clients of Veterans Affairs Canada, 1,400 are totally and permanently disabled and 406 of them will not receive a pension or allowance from the Canadian Forces.

The plan proposed by the ombudsman is based on an actuarial analysis to accurately determine for the first time how current benefits neglect certain veterans and will continue to neglect them unless changes are made quickly. Veterans Ombudsman Guy Parent has said that more than 400 of the most severely disabled veterans in Canada are not eligible for the Canadian Forces pension plan, while hundreds of other permanently disabled veterans could suffer the same fate and risk spending their retirement years at a lower standard of living than they had before the age of 65 due to sufficient income.

Certainly in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan we hear regularly from veterans and their families about their difficulties in accessing services, that they cannot get access to some services that they expected and that the money that is available simply does not respect and honour the service to our country that many veterans made.

I have spoken in the House previously about my father being a long-serving member of the Canadian Armed Forces and I am proud to say that I grew up on army bases from coast to coast.

I have a letter from a former member of the RCMP that talks about the assault on health care benefits for members of the armed forces and the RCMP. I will read a brief note from that because I think this is part of what the Veterans Appeal Board hears about the discrepancy and the difficulties in funding and whether a member is entitled to funding. The member said:

I have written...expressing my concern and profound disappointment with the fact that the government has arbitrarily decided to claw back so many necessary treatments after we risked our health and indeed our lives...I was assured that my health and the welfare of my family would be looked after. That sacred trust has been unabashedly broken.

While that in and of itself is repugnant, my greater fear is that once the members begin to see that their efforts in ensuring the safety of Canadians may actually result in huge costs to them, they will necessarily become more hesitant to engage in actions that risk their health and well being. This policy is short-sighted, unfair and contrary to Canadian values.

When we ask members of the armed forces or members of the RCMP to risk life and limb, we need to respect that when they come back to Canada or when they retire from the forces, they are treated in a fair and respectful manner. It would be incumbent upon the government to actually work with veterans and their families to ensure the services provided are adequate.

The second piece I will touch on is fixing the mistake on the credit unions' tax hike.

The bill introduces changes to fix a legislative error the Conservatives made by rushing the last omnibus budget bill through. Their mistake hiked taxes on credit unions to 28%, instead of the intended 15%.

I will read from the Credit Union Central of Manitoba remarks to a House of Commons standing committee on Bill C-60. The reason I quote from that previous presentation is because it highlights the importance of credit unions in our communities. In my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan we have a couple of different credit unions and they are very important in all of our communities, but in particular, in some of our smaller communities. The Credit Union Central of Manitoba said:

Many credit union branches are in communities that other financial institutions vacated because they were not deemed profitable enough. Our business model, paired with fair tax policy like the additional deduction, has made it both possible and attractive for credit unions to grow in places where our competitors have retreated.

It goes on to say that the removal in Bill C-60 of the additional deductions of credit unions would simply compound the impact of regulatory demands by requiring credit unions to pay a higher portion of their net income in federal tax and further reduce their ability to build capital, invest in new technology and stay competitive.

This was a brief that was presented when Bill C-60 was in the House for a reading and because we had limited time to debate that, there was not enough attention paid to that and other presentations on the impact of Bill C-60, so now we are amending that mistake.

It concludes its presentation by saying:

I would argue that this tax deduction has proven to be good public policy. If it were to remain in place it would continue to be good public policy because it will help credit unions provide effective competition in the financial services sector and assist with the federal government's stated desire to increase competition in this sector. It would also represent good public policy by helping maintain strong financial services in as many communities as possible and contribute to the sustainability of the many communities in rural Canada where credit unions are the only financial institution.

On the venture capital program, this has been a very successful program in British Columbia. There was an evaluation of the venture capital program and it indicated that not only did it contribute to job creation, but it also contributed to the fact that it helped grow companies which then went on to expand and become more successful companies.

Removing the supports for that program is unfortunate, particularly when the government continues to talk about the importance of job creation and supporting small business. Therefore, we would like to see the government reverse its decision on that.

Navigable Waters Protection Act

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-543, An Act to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act (Peel River).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to add the Peel River to the list of waterways protected under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The Conservative government removed this very important river from that list as part of second omnibus bill, Bill C-45.

After consulting this summer with the people in the Mackenzie Delta and those in the Yukon, there was a great deal of support for this river's protection. This is one step in making an attempt to return this river to a status of some measure of protection, which means that in the case of a development on the river, the federal government would have a responsibility to ensure that the development was following good practices.

This is a river that has great tourism and wilderness value, and it is a river that has enormous significance to the Gwich'in people of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Business of the House and its Committees

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize that these are not mere procedural issues. Opposition members clearly do not agree with all the bills the government would like to restore to the stage of debate where they were prior to prorogation.

Prorogation by the government is not a procedural tactic. It is a tool enabling Parliament to restart debate and to resume consideration of the bills the government wants to introduce. It is a process that is normally available to the government to enable it really to resume debate when it has reached the point where a new start is necessary once it has achieved the objectives set out in the previous throne speech. The tool is there, it is available, and it can be used by the government.

Unfortunately, this government always uses this tool as a hammer to hit opposition members. We have a lot of debates, we have a lot of ideas about the bills we have before us, and we should have the opportunity to present them. The fact that the government merely wants the benefits of prorogation and does not at all want to suffer its harmful effects clearly shows it does not understand the procedural process of the House of Commons. It wants to reinvent it and reinterpret it in its own way. This is not the first time it has done so. Members will recall, for example, that this government used prorogation to prevent a coalition of members of this House from forming a government.

The government used this tool as a hammer. However, this tool should only be used with considerable reservation. This government has shown itself incapable of reservation. Although we agree with some bills, it wants us to accept the bills with which we do not agree. This is not a negotiation. This is not an effective way to conduct the business of the House. It is a method of legislating that the majority of Canadians probably do not support. However, the Conservatives want to have these bills passed without the debate necessary to expose their deficiencies. The members here present must have the opportunity to state their opinions.

We want to state our opinions about the striking of a committee to study violence against aboriginal women in Canada. We definitely want to do that. We want to let the Conservatives hold their convention at what they consider the appropriate time. In exchange, however, we are not prepared to allow all the bad bills they introduced in the last session of Parliament to be reintroduced in the House without debate or to resume consideration at the stage where they were without members having the opportunity to debate them.

The problem we have here is that the government insists on having the benefits for itself alone. This is not a mere procedural issue here. This is an opportunity for the representatives of the people to state their opinions on the bills and to assert the views of all Canadians in this House.

The government would have us believe that this is just about failed negotiations and that the opposition is delaying proceedings in this House. This is not just about procedure. It is about democracy and being able to speak our minds, as we are supposed to do. We are the representatives of the people. We are not here to rubber-stamp the Conservative government’s bills. Even Conservative members should be able to speak to their own bills. Unfortunately, even they will not have the opportunity to do so. Every member of this House, regardless of political party, should have the right to speak out.

The motion the government has set before us today was presented following negotiations over a matter of weeks. Unfortunately, the negotiations went nowhere. It was absolutely necessary to request that the Speaker intervene to look for House customs and precedents.

The government seems to believe that its motion should be adopted merely because it has set it before the House and that it automatically falls within the procedures and traditions of the House.

Time and again, these days, the government has been unable to proceed with its motions, because the Speaker has had the simple common sense to look at House customs and precedents and take into consideration the very foundation of Canadian democracy as represented by House procedures. However, the government seems to be trying to set them aside, to the detriment of both opposition members and those on the government side.

Members must have an opportunity to debate bills in order to express themselves with regard to those they agree with and those they disagree with. In response to the motions the government proposes, it is not possible to express oneself clearly. That is the danger with omnibus bills. Sadly, this is not the first time the government has offered us doorstop-sized omnibus bills. Now it is moving omnibus motions. We know what the result is: they are poorly constructed. This often leads to harmful consequences that impact the Canadian people.

For example, omnibus Bill C-38, which was imposed on the people, is spreading suffering across Canada. Unfortunately, it was passed. Members will recall that it amended 70 statutes at one stroke. We are unable to debate efficiently in the House when a single bill amends 70 statutes. It is downright inefficient.

When the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons tells us that the opposition is generating inefficiencies in the House, we really have to wonder what sort of inefficiency he is referring to.

In my view, the inefficiency is to be found in bills and motions that are badly drafted and put together and require such devices as raising questions of privilege and points of order to the Speaker. That takes time. Normally, what is presented in the House should have been resolved and negotiated.

We wanted to negotiate in good faith on motions and bills that could benefit all Canadians in a full and comprehensive House of Commons debate, but unfortunately, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons insisted on an omnibus motion.

We are now debating that issue, whereas we should instead be debating issues that are of more interest to Canadians, such as a commission of inquiry on violence against aboriginal women or a request that the Standing Committee on Finance initiate a study on income inequality in Canada.

There are many bills we could genuinely begin to debate in full. To do that, however, the government insists that we accept its opinions and its interpretation of prorogation, whereby we should ignore the very outcome of prorogation.

Let me remind you that prorogation terminates government bills. The government knew this. It is not as though the effect of prorogation was something hidden. It was known. Then the government insisted on changing tack and saying that prorogation does not mean that but means an opportunity to spend millions of dollars on a new throne speech in the other chamber. It makes no sense! It is an absolute waste.

Generally speaking, the Senate is quite definitely a waste. We saw that well enough in the debates and in question period today. There is an absolute need for the government to stop trying to convince us that its interpretation is the only valid one. The traditions of the House have been formed precisely to enable full and comprehensive debate, a discussion that sheds light on shortcomings that may exist in the government’s bills and motions.

It is to the government's advantage to allow a debate. It is in no way detrimental to the government to allow Canadians to express their opinions on its bills and motions. That is precisely why we have a parliament rather than a dictatorship.

There is an absolute need for the government to consider enacting legislation with some flexibility and working with those other Canadians who are not represented by members who are also ministers. I would also like Conservative members to have an opportunity to express themselves on the government’s bills and motions.

We have seen the result of a lack of transparency on the part of this government: it is losing its own members, who have to sit as independents, because they are not able to express themselves fully and completely. It is difficult for people who voted for someone who no longer represents the banner under which they were elected. We are ashamed of this procedure, and these problems in the House of Commons. I do not understand why the government cannot see that a full and comprehensive debate benefits all Canadians.

From the start, we told the government that we were prepared to allow this debate without opposition, provided that the motions were split. We suggested it yesterday, as soon as Parliament reopened after the prorogation that was forced upon us. We suggested that by unanimous consent of the House, the members concerned be allowed to attend the Conservative party convention.

I do not understand why Conservative members did not find this a realistic offer. Unfortunately, since the government refused to negotiate with the opposition parties, we had to waste an entire day just to see whether the motion for consideration could be split. It is now split—or at least, the vote is split.

This shows that the opposition is frequently right. Opposition members looked into the matter and genuinely considered the consequences of the motions the government proposed, whereas the government seemed to want to act like a bulldozer and break down walls, completely ignoring the will of Canadians, as represented here by the members. It is a fairly dire problem for the government. Its members are unable to let the light of House debate illuminate their bills and motions.

I hope the Conservatives will start seeing this House more positively and will start debating in good faith, or at least in better faith. The Conservatives seem to find this very hard to do. The Conservatives say they are here to protect Canadians, but it is the opposition, frankly, that plays this role. In fact, Canadians unfortunately have no voice in this House, given the way the government treats us. The Conservatives cannot have a clear idea of what Canadians want if they do not allow their representatives to express themselves at the appropriate time and in the appropriate place. The appropriate time and place is here, now, in this House.

We should have been able to resolve this during the negotiations held before the House resumed. Concurrence in some of the motions that were put forward yesterday would have allowed for full discussion and debate. Now we are still having debates on omnibus motions. We are still trying to deal with this problem.

In view of recent history with bills C-38 and C-45 and the 2008 prorogation, after such a close call, the Conservatives were afraid of what Canadians wanted. They hid behind prorogation. For the Conservatives, prorogation is not an opportunity to start the parliamentary cycle over again and allow for full debate on new bills and a new vision for Canada.

For the Conservatives, prorogation is a hammer with which to beat Canadians and force them to accept its will and its view of government. The Conservatives really should have held a lot more consultations than they did. Obviously, they do not want to consult the House of Commons. The Conservatives are trying as hard as they can to subvert the will of Parliament. They are trying as hard as they can to sabotage parliamentary procedure, which exists specifically in order to safeguard our democracy. The Conservatives do not want to have full and broad consultations with Canadians.

I will give some recent examples. The government wants to reform Canada Post services and may get rid of home delivery. For two months, there was only one website where people could express their opinions. There was no publicity about it. If people stumbled upon the website by chance, they could click a button and give their opinion, but unfortunately no one was informed that this consultation was going on. Now the consultation has ended. There was no notice. All of a sudden the website disappeared. I called Canada Post, while the consultation was going on, and I asked how long proposals could be submitted. I was told that the website would always be up and would never be closed. Nonetheless, about three weeks later, the website no longer existed.

The government seems to be afraid of consulting people. It avoids consulting with Canadians. When consultations are to be held, there is no publicity. The government does not want to consult members of Parliament.

I want to know where the Conservatives get their ideas from. How can they think that their bills are going to be worthwhile if they do not listen to ideas that come up during debates or to expressions of the will of the people?

There are other situations. The Commissioner of Official Languages recently issued reports that said that the Maurice Lamontagne Institute library should not have been closed because there was no consultation about it. Take the employment insurance reform. In the House, the Conservative government admitted that it had conducted no studies and had not consulted Canadians. Then it put forward a huge reform package that coincidentally created a surplus of a few billion dollars in the employment insurance fund. Coincidentally, that money, taken from the least fortunate Canadians, will help pay down the deficit, a problem the Conservatives are bragging about solving. Congratulations to the Conservative government for taking money from the Canadians who are least able to afford it to pay down the deficit. In my view, it is a disgrace.

Once again, if the Conservatives had consulted Canadians, Canadians would have been able to tell them that the way to get rid of the deficit is to increase taxes on the wealthiest companies in Canada. They did not consult Canadians. There is no consultation. The Conservatives do not want to consult Canadians or their representatives in the House. We have seen this time and time again, and the motion before us today is proof of that fact.

I want to see a government that is able to conduct consultations and that is not afraid of its own people. This is not true of the Conservative government, nor was it true of the Liberal government. The Liberals also had fun proroguing whenever they wanted to.

It is about time we had a government that was prepared to accept the will of the people, prepared to consult with others and prepared to pass bills that address the needs of ordinary Canadians, less fortunate Canadians. It is about time we had a government whose work in the House of Commons would benefit Canadians, who should not be afraid and always wondering what other surprise the government is going to bring in without any consultation.

The government has to trust the Canadian people. This government does not want to consult Canadians because it is afraid of what Canadians want.

We know what happens to governments that are afraid of the will of the people. Usually they do not last very long. This is what I hope to see in two years’ time, the next time Canadians are consulted.

I would remind the House that the Constitution does not allow the Conservatives to govern after 2016, because they only have five years, under the Constitution. I would not be surprised if they wanted to stay in power longer. Luckily, the Constitution has fixed the maximum life of a government. At that point they will not have any choice and will have to consult the people. I think perhaps they are probably right to be afraid of consulting the people. The next election will show that the people no longer support this government.

If the people were consulted today about the bills and the motions before us, we would see that Canadians also have a great deal of difficulty with what we are being asked to do.

In the throne speech, instead of finding out that they would be allowed to take beer and spirits across provincial boundaries, Canadians would rather have learned that they could stay in their home region and be supported by a government that would bring wealth to their communities. Instead of this, the government creates situations where the remote communities in Canada are not consulted. The government does not know how to help these places. Unfortunately, that can lead to a situation where remote communities will have no choice but to disappear. The people will have to move to other areas of Canada. This is no way to treat people. This is no way to ensure that families in this country are healthy and people can reach their full potential.

The government did not consult communities and imposed rather substantial changes with regard to wealth in Canada.

Then we saw the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans telling people not to worry, if they were in difficulty during the winter because, for example, their employment insurance was cut off, all they had to do was move to Alberta.

It is truly shameful to say this sort of thing without having consulted Canadians about the type of reform there should be to employment insurance. The Conservatives pushed through a radical reform without consulting, without considering the consequences and without doing any studies. Now they are telling people it is too bad for them and they can always move.

Canadians deserve better than this. The Canadian government should have more confidence in the Canadian people and should consult them.

I return to today’s motion. This is not consultation of the Canadian people; it is the imposition of Conservative tactics to force the passage of government bills and the adoption of the government’s vision of Canada.

If we had had the chance, we would have wanted to get a resolution passed fairly quickly to have the standing finance committee conduct a study on income inequality in Canada and the growth of that inequality. Unfortunately, such a resolution cannot be passed quickly because the government has put a price on it. We will have to allow all bills that did not get to third reading and were not passed in the House to be picked up where they were left off prior to prorogation.

It was not possible to quickly strike a committee to study the violence being done to aboriginal women in Canada.

It was not possible to allow the Conservatives to go ahead with their plan to hold a convention. It is fine to move forward and consult their members, but this might have been an opportunity to consult Canadians at the same time on the issues of real concern to them, including financial issues: how are they going to pay their rent? What kind of job will they get?

We heard in the House today that half the people in Toronto do not have permanent full-time employment. That is truly shameful. One can understand the stress that can affect a person who does not know whether he will have a job next year. That is the situation of half the population of Toronto. Clearly, they are going through a very difficult time.

I am hearing this sort of thing from many parts of Canada. People feel abandoned by this government, which is afraid of Canadians, which is afraid of consulting the people. Perhaps it is right to be afraid.

In recent months and years I have met with many Canadians who have lost a great deal of confidence in both the Conservative Party and the Conservative government. The Conservative government might have been able to keep that confidence if it had consulted them. It would be good if it could prove here, in the House, that it is prepared to consult the people’s representatives. Unfortunately, once again, the government seems to be incapable of this.

Today we are debating an immense omnibus motion.

We have seen it so many times: omnibus bills and motions can only lead to disaster. Often they are poorly drafted and they do not get the benefit of thorough debate.

I also want to point out that in this bill the government also wanted to allow the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to proceed with its study on the Standing Orders. That way the government will have the opportunity to closely examine the Standing Orders, to explore House practices, and to see why and how the rules are in place. This might give the government occasion to read with attention the practices and procedure in O'Brien and Bosc.

I sometimes wonder whether the Conservatives know their way around the Standing Orders. Not everyone does. Sometimes even a good parliamentarian will not be fully knowledgeable about the rules of this House. That is a fact. That is why we have to consult the clerks of the House, the experts and their assistants. Do the Conservatives do this? It seems to me they do not.

The result tells me that they have not had the benefit of consulting their own employees. If they did, we would have seen the evidence. The motion would have been divided right from the outset today. After the good-faith negotiations we had with the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, one would have thought that common sense would pay off and win the day.

Unfortunately, it is clear that the government seems incapable of seeing common sense when it confronts it. It is capable only of going on with its wrong-headed way of proceeding; this has been proven in the House of Commons. That way of proceeding runs counter to the Standing Orders of this place. Has this been done deliberately? One dare not think so. However, I think that the government sometimes considers itself shrewder than other people. It believes itself capable of going ahead and creating new practices and procedures in the House, without ever thinking that other people may realize that something is not quite right.

Unfortunately, we could have had this debate here a month ago, but the government decided, once again without consultation, that prorogation was the way to go and that it was more important to avoid question period for a month.

As the Senate scandal continued to simmer, boil, then overflow, the government decided that Parliament should not sit while it was negotiating a free trade agreement with Europe, failing to consider the fact that Canadian farmers would suffer rather extreme and adverse consequences under that agreement.

If the government had taken the time to explain to the House, and thus to Canadians, the scope of this free trade agreement with Europe, people might not be stressed and worried today at the thought of possibly losing their farm. Would it not have been possible for Canadian farmers to unite to assert that there is a big problem with the fact that the government wants to proceed with a free trade agreement with Europe without adequately consulting them?

All of this might have taken place had there been no prorogation. We would have had a month for debate and a month for the government to explain its intentions and the direction it wants to take. We have not had that opportunity, which is most unfortunate.

The government is running around in all directions. During prorogation, before the Speech from the Throne, it announced that it would put forward a bill to allow people to select the television channels they want through the cable companies.

I want to point out that back home, in the Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands, we were forced to get cable services. Until last year, we had free access to CBC television, like all other Canadians.

That is no longer the case. CBC television is no longer available in the Gaspé or on the islands. The only way to get it is through cable packages. Now the government is saying that it is helping us save money by allowing us to get pick-and-pay channels. I want to make it clear that before we did not have to pay anything. Should we thank the government for saving us money after imposing a fee on us? This really shows a lack of common sense and, once again, it is the result of a lack of consultation.

This summer we heard that the government wanted to increase civil liability for companies engaged in offshore oil development. Currently, these companies are liable up to $30 million. The government arbitrarily decided to raise that limit to $1 billion. This bill would have been a worthwhile piece of legislation if the government had taken the time to table it. If Parliament had not been prorogued for a month, we might have soon been debating this legislation.

People living in eastern Canada, on the Atlantic coast or the Gulf of St. Lawrence, in the Arctic or even on the west coast of British Columbia would really like to know the ins and outs of this bill. Unfortunately, this will not happen for a while because Parliament was prorogued for a month. We lost all this time and we still cannot figure out the government's vision.

Those who listened to the Speech from the Throne yesterday did not get a better understanding of the direction taken by the government. The speech had many words but very little content. The government said it will allow the movement of wine and beer for people living in various regions. That is fine, but these people are concerned about the fact that they and their families must move to other areas to find jobs—and the government is bragging about creating jobs.

If we look at immigration levels in Canada, we realize there is nothing to brag about when it comes to employment, the percentage of the population and job creation. Despite what we hear repeatedly from the other side of the House, we are far from being the best among the G7 or G8 countries. We may in fact be one of the worst.

The government simply did not explain its vision. This government failed to show up and even face Canadians to explain its vision. It is afraid of its people and of Parliament. It is afraid to follow Parliament's procedures in a manner respectful of all parties in the House. It wants to impose its will, but that is why we have rules.

When the government brags about being the law and order party, it should remember that it is also subject to law and order, which also ensures equality among all Canadians. It is a reminder that everyone enjoys the same rights and that the government is not above the law. The government cannot think that it will simply do what it wants and that Canadians will say that it did a good job, even though their income is lower than it was in the previous year, they no longer know whether they will have a job, or whether they are paying for scientists who have been muzzled and whose views they can no longer know because they cannot have access to their reports. That is all true.

However, the government seems unable to face its own population and allow a full and comprehensive debate. Whether it is in the House or anywhere in Canada, the government is simply not there. It does consult, but on the Internet and it is quiet about it. No one knows about it. If one happens to stumble on the appropriate website, that is fine. Otherwise, it is too bad for those who were not consulted. This is no way to hold consultations.

Allowing debates in the House is another way to consult. Unfortunately, there are closures and gag orders. The government does not allow full and comprehensive debates. It does not give all committee members the right to propose motions without going in camera. Parliamentary committees are the ideal place to debate the details of bills and to allow Canadians to come and express their views on federal legislation.

All committee proceedings now happen in camera. It is very unfortunate. Once again, committees should be able to express themselves fully and completely.

What is happening in the House of Commons is also happening in parliamentary committees. Everything is done by stealth, under the watchful eye of the office of a Prime Minister who thinks he is omnipotent. The evidence shows, of course, that he is not. A government should be able to debate fully and completely, both with its allies and with the opposition. This government seems to have a very hard time understanding that.

Omnibus motions have no place in Parliament. Omnibus bills do not allow for a full and thorough debate. The government should allow such debates, as almost all other parliaments do. Here, unfortunately, it is really hard to get the time needed for a proper debate. When members have something to say, they often do not get the time needed to express themselves. The debate is already over, because the government has imposed a gag order.

Today we could have easily gone through three-quarters of this motion very quickly if the government had had a bit more common sense. It could have allowed the parliamentary housekeeping matters to pass unanimously and the committees to be formed quickly and easily, since everyone agrees on that. Unfortunately, in order to do so, we absolutely had to swallow the government's pill and allow all the bad bills that did not pass last time to be reinstated in this new session, without debate, without the opportunity to clarify the bills and without a full and thorough debate.

I find it very difficult to acknowledge that a government seems incapable of taking the time to listen and believing that it does not necessarily have all the answers. A government must have a certain sense of humility. It cannot be better than the people it represents. The people's humility is often impressive. First of all, the people are always right. They should have the opportunity to express their opinions about all bills put before them. They must be able to make suggestions that could improve the bills and motions. Unfortunately, the government does not seem to want the people to have a say. Consultation every five years is fine, but bills brought forward one at a time benefit from evidence, the viewpoint of experts and the representation afforded by members of Parliament.

Unfortunately, bills do not seem to benefit from being sent to the Senate where the people's will is often not well represented. We know that senators are appointed by the Prime Minister's Office and are not given a direct mandate by the people. However, senators take the liberty of slowing down and even destroying bills from this House with a nod from the government.

Where was the government when the bill on transgendered rights was slowed down and killed in the Senate? If the bill was passed by the House of Commons, why did the government not criticize the Senate for defeating it? The Conservative government is now saying that it is very green and that it is controlling greenhouse gas emissions. Where was the government when the bill to control greenhouse gases introduced by the NDP and passed by this House went to the Senate and was defeated? The will of the people was not represented. I repeat, the government seems to have a great deal of difficulty understanding the will of the people.

The government may even be very pleased to manipulate the people's will.

However, I do not think the government would be prepared to accept the will of the people if there were a real consultation on employment insurance reform, on not moving forward with Kyoto, or on the issues that concern people the most. People are generally concerned about jobs, being able to feed their families, being able to pay their rent and being able to send their children to school the following year. That is what people are really concerned about.

I do not see anything in yesterday's throne speech that tells me everything is fine. The government said that it would establish a job creation program. This is the same program that all the provinces have already rejected. I do not see how the government will be able to move forward with this idea.

If the Conservatives are consulting the provinces, perhaps they could give the House an idea of how the consultations are going.

In the throne speech the Conservatives said that they wanted to move forward with a job creation program. However, the negotiations with the provinces show that things are not going well, and it seems as though the program will not happen. If that is the case, why not say so? Why would the government announce in the throne speech that it will move forward with a proposal when it knows very well that it will not be able to? If that is the case, it should be honest and explain to the House where things stand.

Today we learned that, once again, the government is moving forward with European free trade negotiations. It appears to be a done deal, if we are to believe what has been said in the House.

There is a lack of consultation. How is that possible? The Conservatives claim that the agreement will create jobs and stimulate investment. They say that farmers should not be afraid because they will have a huge market in which to sell their products. Did it ever occur to anyone that it might not be possible for a farmer from the Lower St. Lawrence, in Quebec, to take his goods and send them to Europe?

The Conservatives are saying that is what will happen. How will they do it? What makes the government think this will happen? How will it happen? I do not want to be pessimistic. I think it would be wonderful if it happened. However, farmers also want to know how it will happen. The government wants to make them believe that everything is fine, that there is no cause for concern and that their products will find a market.

I am quite happy. I think that farmers would be quite happy to know that their products will be sold at a good price on a foreign market. Everyone would be happy. However, the question is how that will happen.

That is where consultation yields results. Consultations give Canadians the opportunity to understand that the government is there to help them and how it will do so; to understand how they can use the tools that the government offers them; and to understand how they can use those tools to make money, to be able to pay their rent and to send their children to school.

How is the government proposing to do that? We have no idea. It is not saying. The government is not saying anything in the House about the actual details of its bills and its intentions during the free trade negotiations. The Conservatives do not consult. Canadians have not been consulted. It is disgraceful.

Something as important as free trade with Europe cannot be negotiated without Canadians knowing the ins and outs. The Conservatives cannot scrap agreements with the Americans that affect jobs in the automobile industry without consulting Canadians.

They cannot move forward with major changes to employment insurance rules without consulting Canadians. Canadians are the ones who pay employment insurance premiums in their entirety. How can the government think it is so smart, changing employment insurance rules without paying a cent into the employment insurance fund? The government is going ahead with a major reform that will benefit the government, so that at the end of the year, it can say that it did well, that it balanced the budget and that everything is fine.

Unfortunately, the government is doing so at the expense of the poor. For me, that is what it always comes down to when the Conservatives say the government is there to help consumers. That is great, but let us not forget that consumers are ordinary Canadians. Nobody consults them. They are poor.

Canadians are getting poorer and deeper into debt. If the government consulted Canadians, it would realize that the latest tools it has given them are not good enough to help them get out of debt, nor are they good enough to make people believe they will still have a job a year from now. It is just not good enough.

The government has a golden opportunity here in the House to clarify and justify its actions to Quebeckers, Maritimers, Acadians and all Canadians, but it is not taking that opportunity. I wonder why. What is it afraid of here in the House? Why is it afraid of Canadians? It is afraid to trust them.

It is high time Canadians had a federal government that can show them a long-term vision, a government they can trust, a government that says it will help them and that is there for them. It is more than a promise; it is a fact: Parliament exists for the people. We are here for them.

We are not here to make the rich companies richer. We are here to ensure that Canadians have faith in their future. They need to know that they will have the money they need to pay their bills and send their children to school, and that Canada will continue to be rich and develop our natural resources in a sound fashion.

However, Canadians are concerned right now, because they have not been consulted. They do not get the vision, because the Conservatives seem unable to explain their vision that keeps changing from day to day. Canadians need a government that can clearly express its vision and demonstrate that its goal is to help the people and stand up for the less fortunate.

For decades, the Conservatives and the Liberals formed successive governments. At this point in time, Canadians are carrying more debt than ever before and today's generation is poorer than the preceding generation. We are going the wrong way. A country as rich as Canada is unable to build up the wealth of its people. Where is all the wealth going? What happened to the wealth of Canada? Who does it belong to these days?

It seems that wealth has not been distributed very equally these last 20 years under the Conservative and Liberal governments. We keep losing track of the Canadian vision that we are here to help each other and to help people abroad. Canada is a peaceful country whose vision is to provide assistance and to help people achieve their full potential.

For instance, the Interparliamentary Union provides a great opportunity for parliamentarians to travel abroad and share ideas in order to discover what is working or not working elsewhere and to understand what we have done right or wrong. We no longer have as many opportunities to connect with people at the international level to share ideas. The Conservative government wants to get rid of the Interparliamentary Union once and for all. Why? They seem to be afraid to talk about issues and to have people abroad figure out where things stand right now in Canada. They are afraid we are going to tell people things that will make them wonder what is going on in Canada.

We should be able to feel proud of what we have done and be certain that the next generation will be in a better position than the one before it. That was the case for many years. In general, since Confederation, things have steadily improved. Recently, in the past 20 years, we have changed course, and things are getting worse. I blame this government and the previous government. It is under their governance that so much has been lost and that tactics like prorogation have been used repeatedly.

The Conservative government went as far as using prorogation as a political tool rather than a procedural tool, as it is supposed to be used. It was afraid of the will of the people and of losing control. Therefore, it decided to prorogue.

Again today, the Conservatives are afraid of the Senate scandal. They are afraid that people will see that the police are investigating Nigel Wright and that things will come out in the House. They do not want us to talk about it. They do not want us to talk about the Senate scandal, even though Senator Brazeau has messed up so many times that I do not even know where to begin. They are afraid that the misdeeds of senators will be discovered by the House and that people will find out what happened. This does not just apply to the Conservatives. The Liberals do not want to talk about it either, considering Senator Harb's situation.

The government appointed senators to the Upper Chamber without any debate and without consulting Canadians about what they expect of the Senate. Want kind of Senate would they like? Do they even want a Senate? That debate has not happened yet. We should have a debate but it is not happening. Why? Because Parliament was on leave for an extra month. Or it could be because this government is simply scared of debate. Some will say prorogation is just a procedural tactic meant to get a fresh start and a new Speech from the Throne.

It that were true, the government would not be restoring all the bills that remained unfinished during the last session. Prorogation is supposed to mean a fresh start, but that is not what the government wants; it is just a strategy to keep the House from finding out what wicked tricks its friends have been up to. Conservatives have no interest in the discussions and consultations that would occur if Parliament were sitting.

We lost one month, and it is unacceptable. We are supposed to represent our constituents. Members were elected to represent citizens here, in the House. Every time someone shuts down the House of commons, that keeps us from doing our work. The government does not want members to do their work. It just wants to act freely. That is unacceptable. The government cannot act as it pleases. It is accountable to the House, which means it is supposed to respect the House's rules and will. How is that possible when the government does not consult the House? Of course, no consultation occurs when Parliament is shut down.

Thankfully, Parliament is now sitting again, but only until early December. We will have a very short session. As I said before, I think that the Conservatives want the session to be as short as possible, mainly because they fear the Senate scandal.

Serious mistakes have been made in Ottawa in recent years. Ottawa functions very poorly, and this has happened under this government’s administration. Canadians have increasingly lost confidence in the federal government since this government came to power. Canadians, Quebeckers and all peoples of Canada must be able to look at Parliament and say they are proud of it. They must know that Parliament is there to protect and help them with the powerful, invaluable tools it uses to help people. Unfortunately, the government is managing during a time when people are falling into indebtedness and poverty. It seems to disregard these problems rather than address them directly. It spends hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising. It sets up websites without telling people they are there to permit consultation.

It has really mismanaged the Canadian people’s involvement in government, and it is time the Conservative government went back to square one. It should take some time to reflect. I would have liked this government to take time this past summer to look at what it has done right and wrong. I do not believe it did that.

I believe it simply wondered how it could make sure Parliament stayed shut down for as long as possible and how long it would be possible to keep it shut down without people really starting to complain. Matters had gotten to that point.

We see that people are not happy with what goes on here in the Commons or in the other house. It is time the government addressed the problem, allowed debate and allowed people to speak their minds and tell Parliament what they like and what they do not like. People want to make themselves heard.

The consultation conducted on Canada Post is an example that perfectly illustrates the extent to which the government does not want to consult people. A website is set up, but how does anyone know that, by osmosis or clairvoyance? I do not know. A website is simply available, and people are apparently supposed to know that the public consultation is being conducted there.

Even if people do not speak out, we already know the outcome. The government has already announced it conducted a study indicating that home delivery should be eliminated in Canada. That is a very big change. It may be the right decision. It may also be the wrong one. We would have known if we had had the opportunity to debate it. However, we did not have that opportunity; we only had a website.

I also want to emphasize that this happened at the same time the government cancelled the community access program. Two years ago, the poorest people in the regional communities were provided with reliable Internet access that was unavailable except as part of that program. That service has been cancelled.

However, the government says it wants to consult those people and has created a website for that purpose. I do not know how people are supposed to take part in those consultations if they do not even have access to a website. They do not know the website is available, for two reasons: first, there is no advertising stating the fact, and second, they have no Internet access. How will they take part in the consultations?

No, instead of announcing an online consultation, the government spends millions of dollars announcing a job creation program which does not exist. The government claims it is creating jobs, but all provinces are saying they do not accept its program. It is a waste of money.

The program is so inefficient that one wonders if the government is competent at all. When the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons tells us that we are the ones creating inefficiencies, I say to myself that he should take a look in the mirror and let good old common sense guide him. If he had consulted anyone, he would know that the program does not make sense. He would know that money is being wasted and that people do not like being treated like a bunch of idiots.

It is time for the government to have an open mind, to quit making decisions based on ideology and to start thinking about ways to really serve the Canadian people and to use its powerful resources.

This is the most powerful institution in Canada. What do we see? The government acts as if it did not have a duty to represent the people. The Speech from the Throne is very wordy but very short on content. The reasoning looks good at first, but the government never really explains how it will proceed. Job creation programs are announced, but the government knows full well that the programs it wants to put forward have already been rejected by provinces and other partners in this process.

It seems like consulting is awfully difficult for the government, not only to find out the views of the Parliament, but also to listen to its provincial partners. When did the Prime Minister last meet his provincial counterparts? When? It has been such a long time since the Prime Minister took the time to consult his provincial counterparts that he cannot even remember when. However, we can all remember the last time the government prorogued Parliament. It happened just a few months ago. We also remember the way it was done the time before that.

The government was close to its last breath, and then it tried to revive itself using prorogation. The Liberal government used that same strategy in the past. It also tried to avoid consultations and to bring back bills without consulting or negotiating with members of Parliament. This institution is fraught with problems. There is only one party willing to improve the House of Commons so that Canadians are really represented here. That party is the NDP.

The time is right for a government focused on meeting Canadians' needs. The time is right for a government focused on listening, a government that will introduce legislation and be open to discussions and improvements. The time is right for a New Democratic government.

Don River

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from citizens in Toronto, especially in my riding of Toronto—Danforth.

The petitioners are concerned that the Don River was removed from protection under what was then the Navigable Waters Protection Act by Bill C-45 and are calling for its re-protection.

The petitioners also want to draw attention to the fact that the right to navigation should include non-mechanized vessels, such as canoes and kayaks.

The petitioners want a commitment from the government to meaningful public consultation prior to approval of any project that affects the Don River.

Navigable Waters

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by people from my riding, Beauharnois—Salaberry. Bill C-45, which is now law, made changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. As a result, only 62 rivers, 97 lakes and three oceans will remain protected, while previously, that legislation protected all of Canada's waterways.

Bill C-45 shifts the burden of responsibility onto citizens, groups and municipalities, who now have to take project proponents to court themselves if their navigation rights are breached. The government made it impossible for anyone to comment on the minister's decisions or to hold public consultations on any projects proposed by proponents.

The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to take responsibility for protecting navigation rights, reverse its decision compelling citizens to take project proponents to court themselves, and guarantee that the right to navigate on all waterways and lakes in Canada will be maintained and that an environmental assessment will be conducted for all projects near any bodies of water.

The Environment

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions today. The first one is from my constituents of Kingston and the Islands, and it concerns Bills C-38 and C-45, which gutted protection for ecosystems, especially around bodies of water.

The petitioners call on the government to recognize the importance of ecosystems to our well-being and prosperity, and they call on the federal government to restore federal statutory protections for fish and other natural habitats.

Navigable Waters Protection Act

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-527, An Act to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act (Lake Joseph and other lakes and rivers).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Drummond for seconding this bill, which is designed to add several rivers, waterways and lakes in four Conservative Quebec ridings to the too-short list of waterways that will continue to be protected. Less than 2% of Canada's waterways are being protected.

Among the waterways this bill would add is the Chaudière River, which runs through a large part of the Quebec region of Beauce. Chutes-de-la-Chaudière park, near Lake Mégantic, is an important spot because numerous outdoor and tourist activities take place there.

Lac des Abénaquis, near Sainte-Aurélie, is known for its fishing. There is a fishing tournament there every summer. The fact that this lake is no longer protected because of Conservative legislation means that the right to fish and the right to navigate are no longer guaranteed.

That is why we, the NDP, have introduced bills such as this one. First of all, we want members of the public to know about the changes, and second, we want them to try and change the Conservatives' minds about Bill C-45, which has resulted in less than 2% of our waterways being protected.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Expansion and Conservation of Canada’s National Parks Act

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak to Bill S-15, which would amend the Canada National Parks Act to create the Sable Island national park reserve of Canada, the conclusion of 50 years of work to protect Sable Island's distinctive nature.

The BBC describes Sable Island as being:

...for the Canadians what the Galapagos are for the people of Ecuador, or Easter Island for Chileans. It is important scientifically and historically, but more than this it is important culturally, as part of their identity...

Sable Island is world-renowned both for its biodiversity and its shipwrecks. It is home to tremendous biodiversity, including 375 wild horses, 350 species of birds, 190 plant species and the largest colony of grey seals in the world.

Since 1583, there have been more than 350 recorded shipwrecks on or near the island, earning it the title "Graveyard of the Atlantic".

Let me briefly describe the history of the creation of Sable Island national park reserve.

Given the exceptional ecosystems found on the island, the federal and Nova Scotia governments concluded in 2004:

...that it would be in the public interest to use a federal protected area designation to achieve conservation objectives for Sable Island.

Eventually the consultations recommended that Sable Island be designated a national park, and on October 17, 2011, the Governments of Canada and Nova Scotia signed a memorandum of understanding to establish a national park on Sable Island.

The island would be designated as a national park reserve in recognition of the fact that it is subject to the claim of the Mi'kmaq. The Mi'kmaq and the Governments of Canada and Nova Scotia are currently negotiating this claim. The designation as a national park reserve allows the governments to continue these land claim negotiations.

Conserving Sable Island poses a challenge owing to the wealth of resources in and around the island and the legislative framework under which the reserve was developed, which was that there can be no adverse impacts on petroleum activities.

Parks Canada has explained to me that this is the first time a reserve has ever been created in an area of oil and gas activities. Over the last 50 years, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board has made 23 significant discovery declarations in offshore Nova Scotia.

Bill S-15 would put into law an existing prohibition against drilling on Sable Island. Importantly, five oil companies that have been granted exploration licenses for on-island drilling have voluntarily agreed to relinquish these rights.

The Liberal Party strongly supports the establishment of Sable Island national park reserve. However, we would like this legislation to proceed to committee for a thorough review to ensure that this national treasure is properly protected. We want to ensure that rigorous environmental protections and safeguards are maintained for this national park reserve, for all our national parks and for future parks. As well, we must ensure that any concerns by the Mi'kmaq with regard to the legislation have the opportunity to be addressed.

One concern is with regard to the extent and oversight of natural resource development that Bill S-15 would authorize. These include petroleum exploration activities, which might include seismic, geological or geophysical programs on Sable Island. Additionally, what other activities might fall under the term “low impact” petroleum exploration? What does the government define as “low impact”?

At a departmental briefing, officials explained to me that "There are no exact details, no discussion of when low impact becomes high impact". In fact, when I asked about the availability of studies looking at possible impacts, I was told Parks Canada had only one.

Moreover, the official repeatedly used the words “as presented to us” to describe the evidence they did have, which is evidence from only industry. The lack of definition requires further clarification.

Parks Canada explained that if it was developing a marine protected area the department might have taken a different approach. Should a reserve have less protection? This is an issue that should be examined at committee. Low-impact activities must be defined for parliamentarians when this is reviewed at committee.

The Liberal Party is in favour of responsible and sustainable resource development. However, we believe that development projects must adhere to the most stringent environmental assessments. We must ensure that Sable Island is environmentally protected and that the ecosystems are not detrimentally affected. We understand the economic value that developing the oil and gas resources in and around Sable Island would provide Nova Scotia and that it is legislatively protected. However, Sable Island is a particularly sensitive ecosystem.

We would like a review of Clause 3 and an exception to the application of the Canada National Parks Act with regard to existing leases, easements and licences of occupation and work on Sable Island.

Regarding clause 7, what would be the new mechanism for coordination and co-operation between Parks Canada and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board? This is key, as in the amendments to the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act it states, “before deciding whether to issue the authorization, the Board shall consider any advice”. In other words, the offshore board is not bound by the recommendations of Parks Canada. Who is looking after the interests of the environment and Sable Island if the offshore board is not bound by the decision? I understand from Parks Canada that the MOU defining the rules of this relationship would be put in place after the park is established. The act contains changes to land borders in Jasper National Park. Would the exchange of land between Parks Canada and the operators of Marmot Basin have a detrimental impact on the species in the area?

Regarding clause 15, with respect to Jasper National Park, with the exchange of land and the new development, are there any areas of concern with regard to the environment and species at risk in this new area that would be developed?

Last week I had a conference call with the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, which focuses on protecting many important areas of Canada's wilderness. The call was to find out whether it was indeed comfortable with the fast-tracking of this bill and the fact that even if the bill went to committee, amendments may not be accepted. I was informed that it wants Sable Island protected and that this bill is an important first step.

I ask that the government not use this bill as a precedent to allow exploration in other national parks. I am assured by officials that future parks are legislatively protected from this. Having said that, I have asked the parliamentary secretary and the minister and have still not been given that assurance on the record tonight. I would like the government's word that the integrity of Canada's national parks would not be undermined but instead protected, and that creating a national park among oil and gas exploration is not a foot in the door, an opening or setting a precedent to allow development in our treasured national parks.

I look forward to these issues being addressed at committee.

In closing, I would like to say that the government says it is a conservation government, but its actions paint a different picture.

Both with proposed national parks and protected areas such as the Rouge, as well as Sable Island, there are concerns regarding ecological integrity of the parks that cannot be overlooked, yet government members continually brush aside.

Moreover, I am concerned about the government's environmental track record that we have seen play out again and again over the past year, whether it be through Bill C-38 that gutted environmental legislation, that repealed the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, that repealed the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, or Bill C-45 that dramatically reduced environmental protection of our waterways.

These are not the actions of a conservationist government. These are not the actions of a government that seeks to protect our national habitat.

Standing Committee on Finance--Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I am now prepared to rule on a point of order raised on May 29 by the hon. House leader of the official opposition regarding the process followed by the Standing Committee on Finance with respect to its consideration of Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures.

I would like to thank the hon. House leader of the official opposition for having raised this issue, and the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the members for Winnipeg North, Richmond—Arthabaska and Saanich—Gulf Islands for their interventions.

In raising this point of order, the opposition House leader claimed that the order adopted by the Standing Committee on Finance on May 7, respecting its consideration of Bill C-60, went beyond the committee's authority as conferred by the House. Specifically, he explained that the committee order invited certain other standing committees to study different parts of the bill and, along with independent members, to submit amendments to the Standing Committee on Finance.

He explained further that the committee order also provided that such amendments would be deemed moved so that the committee could consider and vote on them. This, he argued, was an instance of a committee exceeding its prescribed authority, since the House had determined that the bill was sent to the finance committee only and since House rules dictate that committee membership is determined solely by the House and cannot include members of non-recognized parties. In addition, he noted that it contravened the rule that only committee members can move motions and that even they must, in fact, be present at the committee to do so.

The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons contended that it was an established practice that one standing committee could invite other standing committees to consider the subject matter of relevant sections of a bill it is studying with a view to submitting amendments. Furthermore, he suggested that the inclusion of independent members in the committee’s proceedings was part of an evolutionary process, one that was in no way discriminatory since the deadline for submitting amendments was the same for all concerned: independent members, other committees and even members of the committee itself. He explained that, in effect, this process was simply an effort by the committee to respond directly to the suggestion that I had made in a ruling on December 12, 2012, on a similar matter.

For her part, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands questioned whether the committee process was in procedural conformity with my ruling, as well as whether, as a result of the committee order, her rights as a member had somehow been restricted, even put aside. The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska made similar arguments, highlighting what he perceived to have been an erosion of his rights with regard to the submission of amendments at report stage.

In the case before us, in many respects, is a logical evolution of procedural events that have unfolded in the last year, and indeed of events of over 10 years ago. In fact, to place the matter in its proper context, it is necessary to refer to the March 21, 2001, statement by Speaker Milliken, found at page 1991 of the Debates, which set us on a path to where we are today with respect to the committee and report stages of the legislative process. That statement clearly established the guidelines that the Chair now uses to discharge its responsibility with respect to the selection of amendments at report stage. Indeed, the very process of selection was born out of a need to return report stage to its original purpose, that is, the consideration of only those amendments that could not have been moved in committee.

Speaker Milliken was clear in his intent when he urged:

...all members and all parties to avail themselves fully of the opportunity to propose amendments during committee stage so that the report stage can return to the purpose for which it was created, namely for the House to consider the committee report and the work the committee has done...

These guiding principles are embodied in the interpretive notes attached to Standing Orders 76(5) and 76.1(5), which have allowed committees to a large extent to remain the central focus for the detailed study of bills, thereby ensuring that report stage not become a repetition of committee stage.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, explains, at pages 783 and 784:

As a general principle, the Speaker seeks to forestall debate on the floor of the House which is simply a repetition of the debate in committee…Furthermore, the Speaker will normally only select motions in amendment that could not have been presented in committee. A motion previously defeated in committee will only be selected if the Speaker judges it to be of such significance to Members as to warrant further consideration at report stage.

However, the strength of these guidelines has been tested in the recent past as the House faced voluminous report stage proceedings, first in June 2012 with Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, and then in November 2012 with C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures.

These two cases brought into sharp relief the difficulties faced by independent members with respect to committee proceedings on bills, specifically in reference to the provisions of Standing Order 119, which do not permit a member who is not a member of the committee to move any motion, nor to vote, nor to be part of any quorum. These circumstances cause some members to call into question the ability of the House's rules and practices to safeguard the intended purpose of report stage.

They also gave rise to a ruling on December 12, 2012, in which I addressed the issue of the participation of independent members in the process of amending bills, particularly in committee. In that ruling, I suggested that, until committees found a way to enable independent members to have their amendments considered at the committee stage, the Chair would continue to allow them to do so at report stage. I stated at that time, at page 13224 of the House of Commons Debates:

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.

and

…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.

To answer this fully would be to ask the Chair to reach into and adjudicate upon committee matters, a practice the House has long resisted, given that committees are masters of their own proceedings, as we are apt to say.

In my ruling of November 29, 2012, on a similar case, consistent with these long-standing practices of the House, I informed members that in the absence of a report from the committee, the Chair would not delve further into committee matters. In doing so, I quoted Speaker Milliken, who on November 27, 2002, stated:

As Speaker, I appreciate the responsibility that I have to defend the rights of all members and especially those of members who represent minority views in the House. At the same time, it is a long tradition in this place that committees are masters of their own proceedings. Ordinarily the House is only seized of a committee matter when the committee reports to the House outlining the situation that must be addressed.

He then added:

That being said, it is true as well that committees are permitted a greater latitude in the conduct of their proceedings than might be allowed in the House. It may not always be clear in a particular set of circumstances how best to proceed and so the ultimate decision is left to the committee itself.

At the same time, the Chair is also cognizant of its responsibility for the selection of report stage motions and the fact that what happened in the finance committee in this instance has had a direct bearing on my selection decisions in the case of the report stage of Bill C-60 and on independent members. Accordingly, the Chair feels compelled to address some of the issues raised, particularly as they relate to their impact on independent members.

As I understand it, the principal concern raised about the committee process was the committee's decision to deem moved any amendments submitted by independent members and certain other committees during the committee's clause-by-clause consideration. The main concern expressed by the opposition House leader with this manner of proceeding is that in his view it exceeded the committee's mandate. He argued that to deem motions to be moved is a clear violation of Standing Order 119, which stipulates that only permanent members of a standing committee can move motions. The opposition House leader stated that as a result, the process adopted by the finance committee was fundamentally flawed.

It should come as no surprise to members that the House and its committees frequently resort to procedural motions to facilitate the flow of business. Procedure in committee is particularly fluid and varied, and many committees routinely use a wide array of processes to organize their work. Deeming things to have taken place is part of that body of precedent.

In the House, this is often achieved by deciding to forgo the usual procedural steps and to assume that certain procedural transactions have taken place even if they have not. For example, it happens from time to time that the House will see fit to adopt a bill at all stages, deeming that each stage has been agreed to. No movers' names are attached to the motions for second reading, concurrence at report stage or third reading.

Similarly, practically on a weekly basis, recorded divisions are deemed demanded and deferred. Again, no members' names are attached to the motions that make this possible. In fact, the House has even been known to tinker with the time-space continuum by deeming it to be a certain time, even when it is not, and by making, say, a Tuesday to be a Monday, as was done a few weeks ago on May 21. Again, no names of members are attached to the motions that make this possible.

Our House and committee annals are rife with examples of this kind. These commonly used procedural instruments are even provided for in some of our Standing Orders. What may be causing difficulty in this case is that while the practice of “deeming” is most often achieved through unanimous consent, it can also occur by majority decision, but of course at greater cost in House or committee time.

In the case before us, it appears that this is the approach that was used by the finance committee. A motion setting out the process to be followed was proposed, debated and ultimately agreed to. As far as the Chair can see, in the absence of a report from the committee to the contrary, Standing Order 119 was not flouted in the process. Instead, it appears rather that a procedural instrument was devised to provide for the manner in which the committee would conduct its business.

Turning to the issue of the rights of independent members, the Chair can only observe that the decision of the finance committee permitted them to do something they could not do before: namely, to have their amendments considered in the committee and, indeed, to be granted, pursuant to Standing Order 119, an opportunity to speak in committee. This is something that was not open to them before. In that sense, they succeeded in obtaining a form of participation in committee proceedings, as imperfect as it may have been in their eyes.

As Speaker, I can only speculate on whether other committees will emulate or, dare I say, perhaps even expand on the spirit of inclusion witnessed in the Standing Committee on Finance.

In summary then, while I am entirely sympathetic to the procedural consequence of this development for independent members at report stage, I must remind the House again of my obligation to ensure that report stage not become a repeat of the committee stage.

As a guardian of the rights and privileges of all members, it is also my duty in this case to ensure that the rules, practices and expectations of the House are upheld and, in so doing, ensure that members are afforded an opportunity to participate in the legislative process. To protect the integrity of report stage, the Chair would have to know that there was no mechanism at all, not just an unsatisfactory one, for a member to move motions in committee.

It is true that the rules of the House may result in varying degrees of participation for members, depending on the proceeding and depending on the status of that member for that proceeding. For instance, members of committees enjoy opportunities that non-committee members do not, and even committee members have varying opportunities to participate.

What the Chair must protect is members' rights to have some mechanism to put forward their ideas.

It is for these reasons that the Chair did not select any motions at report stage that could have been considered, or were considered, in committee.

Accordingly, for all these reasons, I cannot conclude that the rights of independent members have been diminished as a result of the proceedings in the Standing Committee on Finance, particularly when scores of members who were not members of the finance committee, and thus not in a position to propose amendments there, are likewise subjected to the very same report stage restrictions.

In addition, noting that this is a departure from the Chair's long-established practice of not commenting on committee proceedings, again in the absence of a report to the contrary on which to base its interventions, the Chair concludes that Bill C-60 is properly before the House and that it cannot find that a procedurally improper proceeding has taken place in the Standing Committee on Finance.

I would like to thank all hon. members for their attention on this matter.

Environmental Stewardship

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate an exceptional citizen from my riding who shows great leadership, dedication and community spirit in her care for the environment. Every spring for the past three years, Maja Vodanovic leads a team of families, students, teachers and local residents to clean out the Bouchard Creek. This year, more than 100 students from 10 schools participated.

This is a noble effort to reclaim a piece of land that belongs to all of us and to pass on the importance of environmental stewardship to our kids.

I commend Maja and all the volunteers on their good work. The Conservative government is jeopardizing the water quality of our lakes and rivers with Bill C-38 and Bill C-45. An NDP government will protect and respect the environment, and it is precisely this optimism, this hope and these actions that we will bring to Canadians every day.

By coming together to clean riverbanks and waterways across Canada, Canadians are showing the Conservative government the right way to go.

Report Stage

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to speak to Bill C-60. I would like to begin by saying that the people of Louis-Saint-Laurent are clearly not well served by the Conservatives' latest attempt to perform what the party seems to think are miracles.

Our riding is economically diverse, and I can say with certainty that none of us are happy with Bill C-60. I believe that is a significant indicator. I would like to thank all of the people in my riding who took the time to express their thoughts on this bill.

Here we are once again dealing with an omnibus bill, as heavy as an Incan inscription and just as impenetrable. The message behind Bill C-60 comes at an opportune moment in Canadian political history. The Conservatives are bound and determined to pass omnibus bills because they come to power only once every 35 years and have to focus on forcing these massive bills through. Clearly, that is their only hope.

The Reform Party can be proud of the fact that it managed to make itself a part of actual history. It became more than just a regional party. Good job, guys. Bill C-60 is the third omnibus bill that the Conservative government has thrust into the court of public opinion. At this point in time, I think there is one question we should be asking ourselves. Why did the government not bundle all of these measures into its first budget, Bill C-38? The Conservatives would have won the dubious honour of having created the biggest bill ever introduced. They could have given us a super-omnibus bill to solve all of Canada's problems in one fell swoop.

No matter what the Conservatives say, this budget will stall Canada's economy, not revive it. Budget 2013 will eliminate thousands of jobs, cut direct program spending and slow GDP growth considerably.

The government is putting positive spin on its measures so that it can spread devastation. This trademark Conservative lack of nuance, its black-or-white mentality, has plagued us for eight years. The Conservatives use the word “growth” to hide basic corporate interests.

The only thing that will grow with Bill C-60 is the Conservatives' ego, as well as the size of the attendant ethics scandals.

Although some of my colleagues have mentioned it, it bears repeating that the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer stated that these cuts are completely unnecessary to restore the structural budget surplus.

I am not in the habit of accusing the Conservative government of indulge in demagoguery in my speeches, but this time, as I said before, the ruling party has been overtaken by its own folly. Given that wages are stagnating, jobs are unstable and average households and individuals are heavily in debt, why is this cutthroat dollars and cents approach overriding everything?

Canada is not just a collection of economic indicators to be manipulated. It is first and foremost the sum of its people. When it comes to the economy, the Conservative message is clear: economic survival or economic weakness. To them, all Canadians owe their living to the economy.

Depriving people of the means to achieve economic success is a misguided approach. People are the basis of the economy, not the reverse. Economic indicators that now seem so meaningful and crucial will not be voting in 2015. It is the very people the government has abandoned who will undo legislation like Bill C-60.

Since we are on the topic, Bill C-60 obviously meddles in a wide range of separate and unrelated issues, each time with the government's pervasive iron fist.

For example, and this did not go unnoticed by the public, a number of crown corporations will have their ability to bargain collectively eroded, practically stripped away. From now on, during negotiations, our crown corporations will have to deal with unavoidable advice from the President of the Treasury Board, who will sit at the head of the table, as proud as Bashar al-Assad. There will be no getting away from this oh-so-valuable government input. Is that supposedly august presence really necessary?

No, but while we are at it, we might as well follow through with that logic. We should create a department to oversee union negotiations. After all, Canada's future depends on it. Talk about ridiculous.

The Conservatives are keeping up their attacks on Canadian workers, believing they will win over an undetermined social class to which no one belongs. It is like the Arabian Nights, but without the magic, because the magic has run out.

In the last budget, the Minister of Finance, gleaming like Prosecco, used a very effective diversion tactic. When he was announcing the convoluted content of Bill C-38, he announced that he would eliminate the penny. That was the price they had to pay for getting Canadians to accept the enormity of the bill. Just like that, it all came down to getting rid of the penny. The Conservatives took on a modern look for a very low price.

This year they are coming back with a budget bill every bit as big and callous, but without the handy distraction the penny provided. However, the metaphor lives on: Bill C-60 will not grow the economy by a single penny.

Bill C-60 is just a litany of punitive measures against workers and crown corporations and a series of tariff adjustments that, at the end of the day, will have no major impact on people's budgets in this country.

The figures quoted by the Parliamentary Budget Officer amaze me. In total, budgets 2012 and 2013 will slash 67,000 jobs, which in turn will trigger a 0.57% drop in the GDP, as one might expect. If we compare those figures with the rhetoric the Conservative government has been spewing ad nauseam about creating hundreds of thousands of jobs since the recession, we see that this is total madness.

My impression is that the 900,000 jobs that the government has created—because I believe that is the new number members are using these days—are in China, not here. That is wonderful for China, but when the manufacturing sector in Ontario completely disappears, like the Etruscans, what then? Does Bill C-60 try to remedy this situation? The question remains, but I believe that the bill speaks for itself, and it is quite sad.

As we have already said, the NDP strongly opposes the idea of omnibus bills like this one, legislative measures that, frankly, are offensive because of their size and how underhanded they are. The government wants to quickly pass legislation on very complex issues that are not even connected to one another, for the sole purpose of being able to boast about having done it. It is irresponsible and childish.

The NDP would never do that to Canadian voters. However, I am afraid the precedent has been firmly set and the Liberals will be thrilled to take their turn if they ever regain a shred of power.

As we have heard over and over, the Conservative government wants to sneak things through right under our noses by ordering the drafting of these kinds of omnibus bills. However, it will not work. We sit down and dissect them for hours on end. We find all their flaws, large and small. The Conservatives cannot fool us. Everyone knows what they are trying to do. Perhaps the government thinks that it has managed to completely mislead voters with its cryptic manoeuvres. Perhaps it thinks that it will have its cake and eat it too, and then sell it back again at a profit. However, that is not what is going on. The official opposition sees right through the government's game, and the people are fully aware that the Conservatives are trying to trick them.

In Brazil, the word “omnibus” means “public transit”. In this case, that is quite appropriate, because I have a feeling that in 2015, many members across the floor will have to use public transit to get to work. However, the members opposite need not worry, since I am sure they will be able to find something among the 900,000 jobs they supposedly created. I find it appalling that this government has so little regard for workers, people who can never take advantage of the measures in the budget.

The government does not seem to understand that there is an emerging middle class in this country. Even thought these people make up the majority of Canadians, the government continues to ignore their interests, while claiming to defend them. That is deplorable.

Bill C-60 shows little respect for the average Canadian and the provinces fare no better, as was to be expected. The bill hits too close to home.

Without any excuse or explanation, the Conservatives are attacking a program that all of Quebec is extremely fond of. The Fonds de solidarité FTQ is a national resource for all Quebeckers, and it cannot be attacked with impunity.

Our province has developed its economy in a competitive, imaginative and sustainable way through the use of the FTQ fund. By attacking this fund, the Conservative government is attacking Quebec itself. I would really like the five Quebec Conservative MPs to have the courage to rise and defend this deplorable decision while they still have the opportunity to represent Quebeckers in the House of Commons. I know my people, and this is the final nail in the coffin for Quebeckers' dalliance with the Conservative Party.

I cannot refrain from using an accusatory tone in my speech because I am speaking on behalf of my generation, young people between the ages of 18 and 35, who are not fooled by the monumental fast one that the government is pulling on our society for mercenary interests. It is my duty to speak for those who do not have the opportunity to sit in the House. The young people of this society, who the Conservative government tries so hard to control, has such drive that all the C-38s, C-45s and C-60s are so ridiculous as to be offensive.

Young Canadians must not be underestimated. The government would not believe what our young people are capable of. Look at what Turkish youth are doing right now. What will the Prime Minister do if the tenor of the Quebec protests convinces the rest of the country? Is he, too, waiting for his Taksim square?

[The member spoke in another language.]