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.

The Environment

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after the government received yet another embarrassing grade on the environment, I asked whether the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans would do the right thing and restore funding to the Experimental Lakes Area, or ELA.

Let me begin by discussing the government's dismal record on the environment, followed by why the government should fund the ELA.

The 2008 Climate Change Performance Index ranked Canada 56th of 57 countries in terms of tackling emissions.

In 2009 and again in 2013, the Conference Board of Canada ranked Canada 15th of 17 wealthy industrial nations on environmental performance.

In 2010, Simon Fraser University and the David Suzuki Foundation ranked Canada 24th of 25 OECD nations on environmental performance.

Having received such failing grades, an accountable, responsible government would have taken meaningful action to protect our fragile environment and the health and safety of Canadians, while building a vibrant green economy.

Instead, the government gutted environmental legislation of the last 50 years through economic plans 2012 and 2013 and its draconian omnibus implementation bills, Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, severely cut the budget to Environment Canada, cancelled the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, and continues to muzzle government scientists.

The government's appalling environmental policies have been rightly criticized by policy makers, scientists, Canadians, the international community and repeatedly by the prestigious international science journal Nature.

The Conservative government once again had the opportunity to improve its negative performance by changing its reckless decision to close the world-renowned ELA, with 58 lakes, and considered to be one of Canada's most important aquatic research facilities. Instead, the government began dismantling the station at the end of last month. In the space of a few weeks, 11,000 Canadians signed a public petition, sent hundreds of letters of support for the ELA to government officials and held rallies across the country.

Leading scientists from around the world and across Canada support the ELA's cause. Liberal MPs held briefings for all members of Parliament and senators and put forth motions to study the value of the ELA and the potential effects of transferring the facility to a third party.

Following the presentation of two Liberal motions regarding the ELA, in both the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development and the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans the issue was addressed in camera, without public explanation, and the motions are no longer before the committees.

Scientists suggest the Conservatives are trying to silence a source of inconvenient data regarding climate change with the closures of the Polar Environmental Atmospheric Research Lab, the ELA and with the Kluane Lake Research Station on the chopping block.

The government should know that, despite its denial and stonewalling, the science of climate change simply will not go away.

Combating Terrorism Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act, which my NDP colleagues and I opposed at second reading and continue to oppose based on the fact that the hearings in the House of Commons public safety committee, or SECU, revealed some serious hidden agendas on the government's part.

There are other problems we have with the re-enactment of provisions, albeit with some safeguards from the 2001 Anti-terrorism Act. My colleagues will address those in the third reading debate.

I will address how the hearings before the committee confirmed that Bill S-7 creates serious concerns with respect to the rule of law and human rights, notwithstanding the additional safeguards just outlined by the parliamentary secretary.

During the committee hearings on Bill S-7, my NDP colleagues and I raised several issues related to new offences created by the bill, but our questions were never fully answered by the government.

Many of our concerns related to these new “attempting to leave the country” offences remain, especially—and this is key—how they are linked to the re-enacted counter-terrorism measures from the Anti-terrorism Act of 2001, namely preventive detention, recognizance with conditions and investigative hearings.

For starters, it is clear as day from RCMP and CSIS testimony that the concerns I voiced in my speech at second reading are very well founded. There is a real potential that attempting to leave the country offences would serve as the trigger, first, for investigative hearings that would question friends, families and community members who know a suspect.

Second, once evidence arises through that investigative hearing method, that evidence would then be used to engage in up to 72 hours of preventive detention and then up to 12 months' recognizance with conditions, and indeed, it is important to note, up to 12 months of imprisonment without trial or conviction if one refuses to accept those conditions that are imposed or if one is deemed to have not complied with those conditions.

Such conditions could, and almost certainly would, involve confiscating passports so as to create a veiled, backdoor, de facto control order system, such as the U.K. explicitly uses to prohibit leaving the country. The key here is that all of this would occur implicitly, without it having been debated or structured in a proper way.

In this way, the new leaving the country offences need never be actually prosecuted, and that may well be ultimately the government's intention. They are just as likely, if not more likely, to serve as the reference point for disrupting a person's movement by using these re-enacted, extraordinary procedures of investigative hearings plus the recognizance with conditions provisions in tandem.

Before the bill came to the House, it was before the Senate. It started in the Senate. In committee there, the Minister of Justice said clearly that investigative hearings could be used to seek and get evidence of intent to leave the country for illicit purposes. As the bill itself states, evidence from investigative hearings cannot be used in criminal proceedings against a person questioned in the hearings.

This clearly points to the intention to use investigative hearings to interrogate family, neighbours, friends and others from a suspect's community, with attendant implications for discriminatory profiling, the potential for that discriminatory profiling and for instilling a feeling of harassment in a community that is the target of counter-terrorism surveillance.

CSIS and the RCMP effectively said, “Trust us”. They say that these provisions were not used before they sunsetted, so they will not be used much now. One wonders why there is the insistence of the government to re-enact them, but in any case, we should not believe it. Attempting to leave the country is a new offence of wide-ranging impact, and with respect to that offence or the series of offences that go under that label, the government has every intention of using investigative hearings.

The Minister of Justice, in that same testimony before the Senate, also linked recognizance with conditions orders to the new offence.

In the public security committee, government witnesses were presented with the scenario whereby evidence from investigative hearings is used not only as a basis for arrest of someone before leaving the country but also as the basis for securing recognizance with conditions without the need to actually prosecute.

Keep in mind this fancy term “recognizance with conditions” basically means limiting the liberty of citizens without trial or conviction. No witness denied that this trajectory was possible. It must be borne in mind, and I want to reiterate this, that any refusal to abide by conditions can lead to up to 12 months imprisonment, again without ever having been tried or convicted.

This is obviously a serious chain of state action and it is for this reason that the NDP not only is against the return of the sunset provisions that I have talked about, but also the reason why we have pushed for a range of additional safeguards to heighten monitoring and accountability in relation to how these provisions will operate in practice.

At committee, we concentrated at the amendment stage on such safeguards as it was a given, frankly, that the intrusive provisions would be accepted by the Conservative majority on committee. In committee we moved something like 18 amendments and not one was passed, either because the government majority voted them down or because they were ruled beyond the scope of the bill by the chair. In one case it was because the bill had originated in the Senate, to which I hope to get.

All the amendments were designed to enhance accountability as the government brought back these sunset anti-terrorism law provisions, while adding a new series of leaving the country offences and beefing up, from the Conservatives' point of view, a harbouring a terrorist offence. Half were ruled out of order. I argued unsuccessfully that such rulings misunderstood the legislative purposes of the bill and did not take into account a recent Speaker's ruling on when a bill should be deemed to be a money bill. Those are technical matters that we can leave for the moment.

What is important to note, and it was revealed in the parliamentary secretary's speech, is that this is a bill with three purposes. When a number of our amendments were ruled beyond the scope of the bill, the chair was not taking into account more than one purpose.

One purpose is terrorism repression. The second is rights' protections. We grant to the government that there are some elements in this that are a bit more protective of rights than the measures in 2001, including, for example, the right to counsel before an investigative hearing. We just feel they do not go nearly far enough. Third, separate from this, is institutional oversight and accountability and transparency mechanisms. These are all interconnected but have separate purposes. In our view, every amendment we proposed fit into one or other of these three purposes and thus none were beyond the scope of the bill.

The New Democratic Party believes we must seriously address the issue of terrorism. There is no doubt about that. However, we have to ensure respect for rights and freedoms.

That is why we introduced the amendments to heighten oversight, transparency and reporting in the bill in order to lessen the negative impacts on civil liberties, which the bill is bound to have. These amendments drew on testimony at committee and they also reflected the values that we believe were important to Canadians.

Let me describe some of the amendments that were attempted.

The first amendment would have provided for an inter-agency co-operation protocol between CSIS, the RCMP, CBSA and the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority to be put in place before the leaving the country offences could come into effect. Our rationale was that the exceptional state powers should be carefully circumscribed and accompanied by equally rigorous independent oversight which a protocol would have to build in. This amendment was deemed inadmissible as being beyond the scope.

However, the reason we believed the amendment was both necessary and within the scope of the bill was that in the Senate the director of CSIS drew particular attention to the fact that no protocols existed between these agencies for the kind of co-operation that he said would be needed in order to give effect to the leaving the country offences. He made it clear that such protocols were necessary.

Testimony before committee also indicated this, so we took it seriously by proposing a protocol for collaboration and that SIRC, the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which is the only relevant existing oversight committee in this field, must endorse it and only then, once the protocol was in place, would the provisions enter into force. We felt this was a reasonable provision. Now, because it was ruled out of order and adopted, we can only hope that the various relevant agencies will develop a protocol before these new offences enter into force.

The second amendment related to conditions for people to be charged with an offence related to harbouring terrorists. What the government wants is a provision that says everyone who knowingly harbours or conceals any person whom they know to be a person who is likely to carry out a terrorist activity for the purpose of enabling the person to facilitate or carry out any terrorist activities is guilty of an indictable offence liable to 10 years of imprisonment.

We wanted to change the words “likely to carry out a terrorist activity” to “intends to carry out a terrorist activity”. Our view, bolstered by the testimony and submissions, for example, from the Canadian Bar Association, is that likelihood is far too lax a standard, especially when we are asking somebody to think through to the mens rea state of another person. The term “likely” is far too speculative, but the amendment was defeated.

The third amendment we proposed was to ensure that testimony gathered from investigative hearings could not be used against the individual in any extradition and deportation proceedings, not only criminal proceedings. We heard from the parliamentary secretary that this was implicit. The Supreme Court ruled on this almost 10 years ago and said that in order to be compatible with the charter, that evidence could not be used in extradition and deportation proceedings. The Conservatives acknowledged this in committee and yet refused to write in the words that said this and made it clear.

We wanted this in bill simply because we believed that criminal law should be as clear as possible and that reasons of certainty, caution and respect for the rulings of the Supreme Court necessitated it. At the same time, it was specifically resisted. One can only ask whether the government is literally hoping that a newly-composed Supreme Court will eventually revisit that jurisprudence and that the only prohibition will be on using that evidence in criminal proceedings. Otherwise, it is impossible to fathom why it would have resisted including that amendment.

We also proposed that the right to counsel, which is written in Bill S-7, be extended to include a right to state-funded counsel, that is legal aid, if a person were dragged before an investigative hearing. Keep in mind that witnesses are brought before investigative hearings with no necessary, and definitely no suspicion of, wrongdoing on their own part. We felt that in this kind of context, it was important to ensure that people were not having to pay the costs of state investigation.

We also felt it was especially important to say that the right to counsel was a negative right. Those who can afford it will obviously be able to bring their lawyers and will have much greater protection in investigative hearings. For people who do not have the resources and cannot afford it, there is nothing in Bill S-7 that would allow them access to lawyers, despite the fact that elsewhere in the Criminal Code there is provision for federally-appointed, state-funded legal aid.

Another amendment revealed more information on the government's intent with the bill. We tried amending the provision on recognizance with conditions to ensure it was clear, and I want to emphasize this, that only persons determined to be potential participants in a terrorist activity could be subject to recognizance with conditions. Our concern was that people who were not themselves suspected of terrorist activity should not be the subject of the restrictions of liberty that were part of the recognizance with conditions regime. We thought this was a friendly amendment on a badly-written provision and were bowled over in the clause-by-clause process when what we thought was a friendly amendment was resisted. To our shock, the parliamentary secretary said that the government actually wanted to keep it broad precisely so recognizance with conditions could be imposed on someone who may not be suspected of any potential criminality themselves. The parliamentary secretary said:

The recognizance with conditions in its present form would provide the potential for a recognizance with conditions to be imposed to disrupt the nascent phase of a terrorist activity, even where the person who would be subject to the recognizance with conditions is not necessarily the person carrying out a terrorist activity.

The proposed amendment would seek to restrict the application of this measure.

That was the NDP-proposed amendment. She went on to say:

Because that is inconsistent with the policy intent underpinning the provision, we are opposed to it.

The government is on record as wishing to permit conditions to be imposed on perfectly innocent people. Failure to comply can lead to 12 months of imprisonment. Is that a regime we want in our country?

There was a whole series of amendments we then proposed that dealt with trying to ensure that the reporting procedures in Bill S-7 were more robust and less general than found in the bill. We wanted detailed information on the statistical use of the provisions, for example. A lot of testimony suggested we needed to have clarity and standards with respect to what the reviews of the operation and the provisions would entail, and we were seeking to assist with that.

We also wanted information specifically written into the review that would talk about exit control and exit information systems. The reason for that was, before the Senate, the director of CSIS indicated that there were no such comprehensive systems in place in Canada. However, there was every sign during the committee hearings that the government intended one way or the other to move toward more comprehensive exit information which could lead to exit control systems.

It was very clear that, not in Bill S-7 but in other legislation, the Conservatives had created enabling conditions to enable exit information to be accessed earlier than was currently possible in the process so before a plane left the country, it would be known who was on the plane and Canadian officers could go onboard and arrest people. However, this was not put in Bill S-7, but in Bill C-45, which is a budget bill.

We were simply taking the cue from the director of CSIS who had indicated that, before the cabinet, our proposals to strengthen the no-fly list were precisely because of the new leaving-the-country offences, yet no information was presented to us on the nature of the debates going on. We felt it was extremely important to ensure that the review mechanisms down the road would ensure that exit information and exit control were taken into account.

I believe I am nearly finished my time, although I have had to talk over an incredible hubbub and ruckus on the other side of the House.

Amendments also sought to ensure that a comprehensive review procedure expressly included the operation of the four leaving the country offences—

The Environment

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before getting back to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, I want to point out that my hon. colleague was saying that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the fish habitat protection provisions of the Fisheries Act could apply. However, these two pieces of legislation were targeted in Bills C-38 and C-45. They were amended and the protections were reduced. In fact, the government is attacking environmental protection. Why is there a double standard in the Navigable Waters Protection Act?

If my hon. colleague is saying that we do not need to protect the environment, then why is it that the Treasury Board is protecting the lakes in one riding in particular? This supposedly does not protect the environment. However, those lakes are protected when tens of thousands of other lakes and rivers in Canada are not.

The question needs to be asked. Why this injustice? Why is it that the Treasury Board is protecting lakes in one riding full of rich and famous people? What are we doing for all the other Canadian lakes?

Opposition Motion--Science

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard.

Today's debate is vital. The current ecological and economic crisis is a reminder that Canada needs to invest in public science and basic research and freely distribute scientific data. Climate change is real, and we are already suffering from its effects. We are at a crossroads, and we need science now more than ever.

Need I remind hon. members that, just 40 years ago, our industries were polluting the St. Lawrence River, we were burning toxic waste and miners were dying of cancer because they did not have the information and protection they needed?

We have come a long way since then. We set up research institutes, cleaned up our lakes and rivers and decontaminated thousands of sites across the country, but there is still a lot of work to be done. Today, we are paying for the mistakes of the past.

Right now, the situation in Canada is of grave concern. This Conservative government is undoing all the progress that we have made over the past decades. By making cuts to scientific research, censoring scientists, abolishing our environmental laws and destroying world-renowned research institutes, such as the NRTEE, the government is setting us back 50 years.

The experimental lakes program is a very good example. For 40 years now, the research conducted on 58 lakes has allowed us to make extraordinary advances in the field of biology that are recognized throughout the world. For example, this research has helped us to better understand the blue-green algae phenomenon and the role of phosphates in the development of cyanobacteria. This research has helped to improve water quality in many of our lakes. And that is not all. The research on these lakes in their natural state has helped to advance scientific studies at the international level. This is the only laboratory of its kind in the world.

Yet the Conservatives do not really seem to understand the importance of this institution. Their decision to do away with the experimental lakes program is a monumental mistake. The government is saying that it will save $2 million by closing this site, yet it costs only $6,000 to operate and replacing it or getting a private institution to run it would cost several million dollars.

What is more, the Conservatives are not considering the cost of depriving our country of data that are essential to preserving the quality of our water. The Conservatives seem to think that this is no big deal, that we will stick future generations with the bill and that they will deal with the problem.

In addition, this week we learned that Fisheries and Oceans Canada had locked up the Experimental Lakes Area cabins and was preventing scientists from accessing the site. Yet Ottawa had announced that it would continue managing the site until next September, but that it would not be paying for any research after March 31.

For months the government has been saying that it is looking for a private sector organization to take over the program, but nothing has happened yet. Britt Hall, a biochemist at the University of Regina and the director of the Coalition to Save ELA, is worried that 44 years' worth of data will be lost and that experiments will be cancelled.

Researchers at Trent University in Peterborough had to stop their work. They were working on the use of microscopic amounts of silver to prevent bacteria. It will be impossible for them to finish their research.

Cuts at the PEARL atmospheric research station in Nunavut also demonstrate this government's lack of a long-term vision. This winter, researchers were not able to gather data. It is important to continue funding research in areas as vital as climate change.

The list of this government's strategic errors is long: cuts to experimental farms and Mont-Joli's Maurice Lamontagne Institute, abolishing Statistics Canada's long form census, cuts to fishery research, cuts at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, at the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada's major resources support program, and so on.

Thanks to documents obtained under the Access to Information Act, we recently learned that there is concern amongst Environment Canada scientists who are responsible for monitoring air quality. Many of them work in offices in Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Edmonton and Vancouver, ensuring that we are complying with laws limiting land and atmospheric pollution. Employees are saying that the government will eliminate positions and that monitoring will be compromised. There is cause for concern.

When the Minister of the Environment goes to Copenhagen, Rio or Durban and says that his government is protecting the environment, but we here in Canada see that cuts are being made to essential, basic scientific research, there is every reason to doubt the sincerity of his remarks.

Yet public research is essential for a developed economy such as ours. The three key players in scientific research—universities, the private sector and the government—all play a fundamental role. The government funds research through programs, institutions and tax credits. Therefore, why eliminate these incentives in science and continue to offer tax breaks to oil companies? That is a double standard.

Public research cannot always be replaced by the private sector. Take Statistics Canada's consumer price index, for instance. Only the government can measure it, and companies really need that information.

Yves Gingras, a professor who is the Canada Research Chair in history and sociology of science at UQAM, said:

People often say the Conservatives are opposed to science. I think instead that they are in favour of strategic ignorance, so they can justify their inaction in certain areas that could hurt industries. When fishers observe that there are fewer fish, the government will be able to tell them that it does not know why and that the government is not to blame if it could not predict the shortage.

It is troubling to see that these cuts to science are accompanied by drastic changes in environmental legislation. With Bill C-38, the Conservative government drastically modified the environmental assessment process for hydrocarbons. Consultations were reduced to a minimum, almost to nothing, in fact. With Bill C-45, it took away all protection for our lakes and rivers.

All of this is accompanied by a culture of secrecy and censorship that has been imposed by the Conservative government since 2006. The prestigious Royal Society of Canada, an institution that has been around for more than 100 years and whose members are scientists in all fields, wrote an open letter to condemn the Conservatives' attitude. The Royal Society of Canada made a very simple request, namely, that the government stop preventing scientists from announcing their discoveries to the Canadian public. It is a fairly basic request. In a democratic society, it is important to discuss what action to take based on fact rather than simply being guided by ideology.

For instance, the census is one of the tools that enabled Canada to become one of the most developed countries in the world. It is one way for the government to develop targeted, effective public policies. For instance, it tells us what the average age is in a given area, which helps public health authorities target their actions. It guides entrepreneurs who are looking for opportunities, by mapping out the average income in a given region. It also helps community organizations that want to reach out to a specific clientele.

Let us talk about the status of French, since today is the International Day of La Francophonie. The status of French in Canada is another example that proves how useful the census can be. The data collected made it possible to accurately follow major linguistic trends, thereby allowing governments to adapt their policies in order to ensure the vitality of the French language. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister could not care less. He has decided to put his own ideological interests ahead of the country's interests.

For a government that claims to care about important issues like economic development, public health, the environment and the status of French, its attitude—tossing aside all scientific data and muzzling scientists—is not very responsible.

In my opinion, good public policies should be based on proven, credible facts. We will continue to advocate for complete freedom for all Canadian researchers and an end to this censorship.

I hope the Conservatives will put their shoulders to the wheel and support this important motion, so that our scientists can restore their image, regain their zeal and continue to participate in the essential research that Canada so desperately needs. Above all, I hope that we can give new hope to young Canadians who are thinking about a future in innovation, research, science and technology.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Cardigan.

Scientists work for a better tomorrow through exciting discoveries, from aerospace to astronomy and from biotechnology to nanotechnology. Science matters more than ever before because the challenges we face, climate change, shrinking biodiversity, are greater and the potential benefits are larger. Canada therefore needs robust science for the public good—for example, to identify risks to ecosystems and human health and to develop solutions to reduce dangers and protect the health and safety of Canadians and the communities in which we live.

Tragically, science is under persistent attack in Canada, despite the fact that the benefits of university research and development are $15 billion and 150,000 to 200,000 person-years of employment per year.

In 2008, an editorial in the prestigious journal Nature criticized the Conservative government for closing the Office of the National Science Advisor, skepticism about the science of climate change, and silencing federal researchers. Budget 2009 cut $148 million over three years from the federal research granting councils. Moreover, the government attempted to direct research towards subjects it perceived as priorities. Scholarships were to be focused on business-related degrees. This was a flawed strategy, as no one can predict with any certainty what the most important inventions and technologies will be in the future.

As one of Canada's Nobel laureates, John Polanyi, wrote, “We have struggled for a long time to come to terms with the fact that our universities serve the public interest best when free of government interference in academic affairs.”

The reality is that countries that maintain and increase their investments in research and development during difficult economic times emerge stronger and more competitive when the recovery begins. In 2009, James Turk, the executive director of Canadian Association of University Teachers, warned that lack of funding and increasing government micromanagement means we could lose a lot of our top researchers.

James Drummond, the chief scientist at the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory, in Eureka, explained that he would be able to improve the lab through new infrastructure funding but would not be able to operate it. On April 30, 2012, PEARL was scheduled to cease full-time, year-round operation.

In addition to government cuts to research funding, cuts to federal science programs and scientists, there have been new media protocols for government scientists since the Conservatives came to power in 2006. For example, Canadian journalists have documented numerous cases, from an unexplained virus in salmon, to a two-degree Celsius increase in global temperatures being possibly unavoidable by 2100, to a 13,000-year-old flood in northern Canada, in which prominent researchers have been prevented from discussing peer-reviewed articles.

Researchers would once have responded quickly to journalists, but are now required to direct inquiries to a media relations office which requires written questions in advance and that still might not allow scientists to speak. Federal scientists are under growing surveillance and control. Numerous studies have shown a pattern of suppression, manipulation and a distortion of federal science. Officials have limited public access to scientific information.

Recently a symposium called "Unmuzzling Government Scientists: How to Re-Open the Discourse" was held at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, in Vancouver. The government's media policies were once again under scrutiny. According to the journal, Nature, “The way forward is clear: it is time for the Canadian government to set its scientists free”.

I can attest not only to the muzzling but also to the fear on the part of scientists. I used to consult for Environment Canada, and I have numerous friends who are scientists across Canada and the United States. Because of fear of retribution if they speak out, Canadian scientists often ask me to speak to American colleagues, who can freely comment on what is happening in Canada. I have one friend who was so concerned that he or she wrote to me from the spouse's email account to my old university email account, and then explained that he or she would call on the spouse's cellphone from a busy mall so the call could not be traced.

Surely everyone in the House should be outraged by the climate in which our scientists are being forced to perform. Surely everyone should be outraged by the quashing of dissenting opinions, by the war on democracy, environment and science. The persistent attack on science for the public good reached a boiling point on July 10, 2012, when Canadian scientists rallied on Parliament Hill in order to protest the closure of federal science programs, the muzzling of scientists and the “untimely death of scientific evidence and evidence-based decision-making in Canada”.

At the end of the month, Canada's world-renowned Experimental Lakes Area, with 58 lakes and considered to be one of Canada's most important aquatic research facilities, will shut down. In fact, the government has already begun dismantling the station. In the space of a few weeks, 11,000 Canadians signed a public petition, sent hundreds of letters of support for the ELA to government officials and held rallies across the country. Leading scientists from around the world and across Canada support ELA's cause. Opposition members of Parliament have delivered petition after petition and undertaken press conferences, including one to push the Minister of the Environment to adopt the 58 lake facility. Liberal MPs held briefings for all members of Parliament and senators and put forth motions to study the value of the ELA and the potential effects of transferring the facility to a third party.

Following the presentation of two Liberal motions regarding the ELA, in both the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development and the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, the issue was addressed in camera without public explanation, and the motions are now no longer before the committee.

The Canadian public supports the ELA. An Environics Research poll showed that over 73% of Canadians oppose the decision to cancel federal funding for the ELA, including 60% of those identifying as Conservative voters. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans claims it cannot find the $2 million per year required to run the ELA, although it would require $50 million to remediate the lakes in the area upon the centre's closing.

Scientists suggest the Conservatives are trying to silence a source of inconvenient data. As a first example, PEARL, the Polar Environmental Atmospheric Research Lab, which gathered atmospheric information related to air quality, climate change and ozone required only $1.5 million to permit its year-round science program.

Also potentially on the chopping block is one of Canada's oldest and most celebrated scientific research stations, the 50-year-old Kluane Lake Research Station, located in the Yukon adjacent to the largest non-polar icefield in the world. The sensitive region is ideal to measure climate change.

ELA has been compared to the Hubble telescope for its service in aiding scientific research. The research conducted at the ELA must continue. The research must be made public and ELA must be owned by the public.

In closing, we must fight for a government that understands that scientific research is fundamental to meeting Canada's needs, will restore science to its rightful place, will back promises with action and money, and will protect scientific findings from being altered, distorted or suppressed. All Conservative cabinet ministers should stand up for science, for scientists, for unmuzzling researchers, and for ensuring a scientific integrity policy so Canadians can receive the best cutting-edge science to ensure evidence-based decision-making. The government must protect our water now and for our future generations, and not protect navigation as it did in Bill C-45. That means ELA must continue.

Response to the Supreme Court of Canada decison in R. V. Tse Act

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, which has been introduced in response to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Tse.

This bill is now at third reading and the NDP will support it. The bill finally corrects a number of previous errors. In response to the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Tse, it amends the Criminal Code to provide for safeguards related to the authority to intercept private communications without prior judicial authorization under section 184.4 of the Code. The bill makes three provisions in particular.

First, it requires the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Attorney General of each province to report on the interceptions of private communications made under section 184.4. Second, it provides that a person who has been the object of such an interception must be notified of the interception within a specified period. Third, it narrows the class of individuals who may make such an interception and, lastly, limits those interceptions to offences listed in section 183 of the Criminal Code.

We are genuinely pleased that the Conservative government has finally introduced Bill C-55. I say "finally" because the government has dragged its feet on this matter.

This bill refers to the obligation set by the Supreme Court, which revealed a deficiency. There was an imbalance between the right to privacy under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the right to security. There was thus an intrusion of privacy. That is why this bill now strikes a balance between the right to privacy and the right to security.

We now have accountability. Now no one may engage in wiretapping at will, without being accountable. A person who has been wiretapped must be notified within 90 days. Why is this aspect important? Now if an individual who has been wiretapped believes that his or her right to privacy under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been violated, that individual may institute legal proceedings against the individuals in question and seek redress. That will help limit overzealous peace officers.

In addition, the number of individuals who may conduct wiretap will now be limited, a fact that also helps strike a balance.

However, the bill is also a response to a total failure by the Conservative government after it introduced its infamous Bill C-30. That bill constituted a direct attack on people's right to privacy and certainly violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was also drafted by the Conservatives in a wholly improvised manner.

It is very important that the NDP remind the Conservatives how crucially important and even essential it is for them to scrutinize all new bills they table in the House of Commons in future. Those bills will have to be well analyzed and checked, and reviewed by lawyers to be sure that they comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution of Canada.

As a result, the Supreme Court will not be required to hear lengthy and costly cases that waste the precious time of all Canadians. That is essential, and I want to recall that point so that the Conservatives learn a good lesson from it.

It is very important to go through all the stages in a democratic process properly. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have a bad habit of wanting to do everything at lightning speed without due regard to the democratic process.

I need only recall its bad budget implementation legislation, Bills C-38 and C-45, omnibus bills of 400 pages each that prevent us from doing our democratic job and from getting to the bottom of things, just as the notorious Bill C-30 did.

In that case, the bill does not make it through the process to committee stage and is neither examined nor evaluated. If there are any deficiencies or aspects that do not comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or are unconstitutional, we wind up with a botched job and have to turn to the Supreme Court to assert our rights.

That is why the judgment in R. v. Tse is important. I hope it will finally teach the Conservative government a lesson so that it acts in a systematic and democratic manner in future in order to ensure compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution of Canada.

I will go into slightly greater detail on the subject of Bill C-55. This bill requires that an individual whose private communications have been intercepted in situations of imminent harm be notified of the situation within 90 days, subject to any extension of that period granted by a judge. The bill would also require annual reports to be prepared.

The preparation of annual reports on interceptions of telephone surveillance is truly important in determining whether abusive wiretap has taken place and in being able to monitor such wiretaps. The requirement to prepare an annual report will help keep an eye on all that. The reports will also enable other authorities, such as the Office of the Auditor General, to monitor what is being done in that regard to ensure that the act and the spirit of the act are complied with, that there are no abuses of justice and that the privacy of Canadian citizens is respected. Annual reports must be prepared on the manner in which information intercepted under section 184.4 is used.

These amendments would also limit the authorization that police officers are granted to use this provision. As I mentioned, all peace officers currently have access to it. Its use would thus be limited to the offences set out in section 183 of the Criminal Code.

It is very important that there be accountability for this wiretapping. We know that there may be threats or moments when a security breach can suddenly call for warrantless wiretaps. At that point, however, there must be accountability because there must be no serious abuses or violations of citizens' privacy.

On that point, I consider it important to note again that the NDP believes it has a duty to ensure compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that public safety is not undermined.

To sum up, it is important to remember that this new bill is no more than an update of wiretapping provisions that the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional. The court also set new parameters for the protection of privacy.

We believe that the bill meets the standards, and that Canadians have good reasons for apprehension about the Conservatives’ bill with respect to privacy. As I said, their track record in this area is not very impressive. Fortunately, this bill brings balance to the earlier imbalance. We must continue to be vigilant, however.

The NDP will continue to be vigilant with respect to the Conservatives’ bills. In the past, we have seen abuses. We saw abuse in the infamous Bill C-30. We have also seen the familiar dichotomy that the Conservatives love to present, whereby everything is either black or white, but there is no grey, so that is completely false. Bills must be referred to committee for study.

I am happy that my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou has returned to hear my comments, because he quite rightly mentioned just now the importance of committee work, and how essential committee work is to a sound democracy. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. Like my hon. colleague from Beauport—Limoilou, I know how very important this little-known work is. We meet with experts, and we propose amendments and additions to bills to ensure that they are as close to perfect as possible, that they respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution, and that they will be worthwhile and improve the well-being of Canadians in our wonderful country.

In closing, we find Bill C-55 well constructed. We appreciate it, because it finally brings balance between privacy and the need for security. That does not mean that we support all of the Conservatives’ bills. On the contrary, they have introduced abusive and infamous bills in the past. Bill C-30 was a horror—need I say again— because it was an absolute threat to people’s privacy. It was a purely conservative bill in the ideological sense of the term. It was an ideological vision.

I know that members who sit on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights criticized Bill C-30 repeatedly. I further believe that my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou was a member of the committee at the time. No, not quite. However, I know that other colleagues, for example my colleague from Gatineau, worked very hard to criticize the infamous Bill C-30, which was a genuine threat to privacy.

Bill C-30 regrettably demonstrated that the Conservatives can often say outrageous things. Truly outrageous things were said in the House when Bill C-30 was introduced. There were incredible dichotomous comments such as “either you are in favour of security and safety or you are on the side of the pedophiles”. It was a horrible speech with no room for grey areas or other comments. After all that, they backed down on Bill C-30 and introduced a bill that made sense—Bill C-55. I do not often congratulate the Conservatives. They should make the most of it today.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Beauport—Limoilou for his excellent speech, which was well researched and explained. He gave a good overview of this legislation and its origin. This was the result of an absolute mistake on the part of the Conservative government, which did not do its homework and brought in a bill that undermined our integrity and our right to privacy.

This bill finally achieves a balance between the right to privacy and the need for security. That was very important. He also mentioned that the government sometimes tended to get in the way of the democratic process and democracy. Bill C-38 and Bill C-45—two undemocratic omnibus bills—are examples of that. Another example is the work done in committee and the abuse of power, in committee, when the government chooses to hold in camera meetings.

I would like to hear what the member thinks about the fact that the government should act much more democratically and should respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution.

Motions in Amendment

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, Bill C-55 is of great interest to me, particularly because it reveals and illustrates the extent of the Conservative government’s failure. The government always wants to move too quickly without showing any concern for our country’s most democratic and most important documents, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution.

On this topic, I would like my hon. colleague to explain how the failure of Bill C-30 and the recent introduction of Bill C-55 show that it is important, when drafting a bill, to take the time to ensure that it is consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canada's Constitution.

The fact that the Conservative government wanted to do everything in its power to push through Bill C-30, even though it respected neither the substance nor the spirit of the charter, is indicative of the government's lack of interest in and sensitivity to the importance of Canadian institutions.

That is the question I would like to ask my hon. colleague, particularly in view of omnibus bills like C-38 and C-45, which were put together very quickly and did not comply with the prescribed time limits.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her excellent speech and the comments that she made about Bill C-55.

Throughout this early afternoon, I listened to what the other members had to say about the importance of this bill, which will remedy a flaw or close a loophole that the Conservatives left in Bill C-30, which is truly an aberration. The Conservatives ended up abandoning this bill because public pressure put them in their place.

The Conservatives are in the bad habit of doing things too quickly, without worrying about respecting the charter and the Constitution, for example. This is a problem that we do not mention often enough and a Conservative shortcoming.

I would like the hon. member to comment on omnibus bills such as Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, two bills that are nearly 800 pages long and that were examined very quickly. The government does not take the time to check whether it is abiding by Canada's key pieces of legislation, namely, the charter and the Constitution.

Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour today to take part in the debate on Bill C-48, the short title of which is the Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012. Its full title is An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act and related legislation.

This is obviously an enormous bill, comprising nearly 1,000 pages. More particularly, it is a very technical bill for the majority of members and myself, who are not tax specialists.

The purpose of Bill C-48 is to make amendments to the Canadian tax system that have been developed over more than a decade. Although we may wonder why the bill is long and voluminous, we can downplay that aspect because this bill nevertheless deals with a single subject, which was not the case with the mammoth bills the government previously introduced, Bills C-38 and C-45. Those bills concerned matters that were unrelated but that had nevertheless been grouped together based on an utterly debatable and debated logic.

Let us talk a little about the importance of taxation to Canadians, especially in this month of March when all our constituents are completing their tax returns. I do not believe our constituents are opposed to the idea of paying taxes, but they are appalled at times to see how their taxes are used at every level of government.

We are currently thinking of Quebec, in particular. In my riding, I hear a lot of talk about the Charbonneau commission and about the investigations that UPAC is conducting in Quebec on how taxes have been diverted from their primary purpose, the creation of infrastructure, at the provincial and municipal levels. Faced with misappropriation and corruption, Canadians—and I believe this is particularly true here in Quebec—are appalled at times by the wrongful manner in which their taxes are used; they are not being used properly.

When taxes are used properly, to expand infrastructure, for example, Canadians are quite happy to take part in this national effort. They are even asking us to do more, particularly with regard to infrastructure.

Although we can only be pleased that good measures are finally being included in Canada's tax legislation, we have reason to be concerned about the size of a bill that is nearly 1,000 pages long. Although it is true for all governments, this nevertheless shows that this government in particular should manage the tax code more effectively and work harder to ensure that statutory measures designed to enact tax proposals are regularly introduced.

With respect to the matter before us, the last technical tax bill was passed in 2001. In the update that she tabled in the fall of 2009, Sheila Fraser, then Auditor General of Canada, said she was concerned that at least 400 technical amendments had not yet been adopted. Although 200 of the amendments she referred to now appear in Bill C-48, hundreds of others have not yet been passed.

Bill C-48 includes some promising measures. Part 4, for example, provides for technical changes to the Excise Tax Act, repealing a measure that has not been used since 1999. Part 7 clarifies the minister's authority to amend tax administration agreement schedules, provided that does not make any substantial change to the terms and conditions of those agreements. Part 7 also enables the First Nations goods and services tax, imposed under a tax administration agreement between the federal government and an aboriginal government, whatever it might be, to be administered through a provincial administration system that also administers the federal goods and services tax.

This change will simplify administration of the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act. These are quite promising measures.

This bill also addresses an aspect that is very important for Canadians and, more generally, for people around the world, and that is the problem of tax evasion. My colleague who spoke earlier mentioned Greece. One of Greece's major problems was not necessarily mismanagement or living beyond its means, but rather its level of tax evasion, which was incompatible with the revenue inflows to be expected in a country that aims to be worthy of that name, a country that should have quite a high level of taxation to pay for the goods and services that every government should provide. Where tax evasion levels are too high, they have a direct impact on essential public services. We have seen this in Greece, for example, and it is indeed a serious problem. A number of social problems result directly from those taxation problems.

Any reasonable person would agree that any amendments that increase tax revenue, discourage tax evasion and, as a result, ensure the integrity of our tax system are positive. We therefore need to adopt them as quickly as possible. What is more, most of these measures have already been in place for several years since, tax measures often take effect as soon as they are proposed.

The NDP is of the opinion that cracking down on tax evasion and avoidance should be a priority for any honest and responsible government. That is what we will do when we take office in 2015. We will do even more to make combatting tax evasion a priority.

I must also say a few words about my NDP colleagues who are members of the Standing Committee on Finance and who, since the beginning of this new Parliament, have been continually pushing the committee to complete its study of tax evasion.

One of the questions we have been considering is this: how can we successfully combat tax evasion? We must use measures targeting certain rental properties and Canadian multinational corporations with foreign affiliates. We must impose limits on them with regard to the use of foreign tax credit generators.

I would like to add that the committee heard from a number of witnesses. I would particularly like to quote Denis St-Pierre, who testified during the pre-budget consultations held on October 15, 2012. Mr. St-Pierre, chair of the tax and fiscal policy advisory group of the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada, said:

First, the government must introduce a technical tax amendments bill. The last time a technical tax bill was passed by Parliament was over 11 years ago. Literally hundreds of unlegislated tax amendments to the Income Tax Act—which I showed this committee last year by bringing the Income Tax Act, if you recall—have been proposed, but not yet enacted, which brings uncertainty and unpredictability to the process.

This reminds us of just how much tax professionals, including chartered accountants, want to see a provision that would make their everyday work clearer.

So, for the reasons I have just mentioned, I will support Bill C-48 at second reading. The main reason is that the tax measures it contains are a step in the right direction, and it has already taken too long to incorporate them into our tax legislation.

Northern Jobs and Growth Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I could talk to the member more about what is not perfect consultation, and that is the way the Conservative government has been conducting itself.

The government failed to consult with respect to Bill C-38 and Bill C-45. It failed to consult with respect to the changes to EI. It failed to consult with provincial premiers whose provinces are going to pick up after the people who are turfed off the EI roles because of ineligibility as a result of what the government is doing with its integrity police. Employers and unions were not consulted. There has been a real lack of consultation on the part of the government. The Conservatives have taken the attitude that something is either done now or later but it has to be done. Unfortunately, we are going to be doing more of it in the courts, and that could have been prevented had the government held consultations now.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is not unlike the way the government responded when we said, under Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, that it was not consulting where it was required to, and it said that it had consulted just fine and that everything was good to go. Subsequently we have seen the Idle No More movement. We have seen first nations groups from one end of the country to the other file suit in the Supreme Court of Canada to challenge the government on that very question of consultation and rights.

That is the point the government continues to miss. Even though there is not an agreement, it fails to recognize the inherent right of the first nations people, the Inuit and the Métis to these lands.

Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by talking about the implications when someone receives a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. I will focus on understanding the parameters for and applications of such measures in criminal proceedings.

It is an honour for me to be able to inform the public. Over the holidays and over the past few weeks, I toured a number of reserves in Quebec. I was informing people about the amendments set out in Bill C-45, Bill C-38 and Bill C-27. These amendments will affect both the traditional and contemporary ways of life of the aboriginal peoples.

I will do the same thing today. I will be informing the public. My background is in law. I was a litigator for almost six years. I worked primarily in criminal law, but I also worked in mental health. During my years as a lawyer, I was called upon to present a number of applications under subsections 672.11(a) and 672.11(b). Later on, I will talk more about how these two parts of the section are applied.

Based on how the media have covered certain cases over the years, it seems clear that the bottom line is popularity and ad revenue, and that the media will resort to flashy tactics, broad appeal and—to a certain extent—misinformation. This is why some people err in fact and in law. This is not a criticism, because not everyone has a legal background, but there are some misconceptions floating around. I think it is important to get back to the basics with this debate, to talk about the foundations, what it truly means and how these sections are applied.

Subsections 672.11(a) and 672.11(b) of the Criminal Code refer to applications that the defence lawyer and the prosecutor can submit to a judge in a specific case. When we meet our client for the first time in a criminal case—I will talk about my experience as a defence lawyer—we can determine fairly quickly whether the individual is in a fragile state of mind, as we say. When we visit a client in his cell or in the psychiatric wing and he is not in his right mind, the psychiatrists' reports will often say that he is in a fragile state of mind, disoriented and confused.

It is at that point that the lawyer goes to the judge and says that when he met with his client, the client was not able to give clear instructions and seemed to be in a fragile state of mind and somewhat confused. There is therefore reason to believe that he is not in his right mind and should undergo an assessment pursuant to paragraph 672.11(a) or 672.11(b). The crown prosecutor may also broach this subject.

I see this all the time in my practice in my riding. For example, in the past few days, journalists from Radio-Canada—not to name names—have said that drug-related crime in my riding increased by 38% in 2012.

Psychosis and toxic psychosis are recurring themes. That is why I have submitted dozens of requests pursuant to section 672.11 over the years. That is specific to my practice in my riding. There is a lot of violence. The psychiatric wing is very well equipped. There are a number of psychiatrists working in Sept-Îles. Some cases, not the majority, were so serious that clients were routinely transferred to the Philippe-Pinel Institute in Montreal for help.

It can take about a month for a client to leave and get assessed to determine if he is criminally responsible. The client is sent to Montreal or, sometimes, to Sept-Îles. The serious cases are usually sent to Montreal to be assessed. The client comes back with an assessment, and the findings go on for pages.

It is interesting reading material and I miss it very much. I will not hide the fact that I miss my practice. I often receive calls on my business cell phone asking me to represent someone. I have to refuse because I do not have the time.

When the client returns and we look at the case, we examine the assessment and the expert report, which provide information about the circumstances and the expert's opinion. To date, I have never seen the crown challenge the assessment or ask for a second one, but that can happen.

The judge relies on the findings of the expert in Montreal or Sept-Îles, as the case may be. The judge will refer the case of the individual in question to Quebec's administrative tribunal. He will rule that the individual is not responsible and simply transfer the file.

This is one aspect that we have not talked about much. I have not heard anything about this today. None of my colleagues has mentioned this. In Quebec, the administrative tribunal is responsible for the file and will determine the course of action to be taken for people who are not criminally responsible.

To put all of this into perspective, I will add that the hearings of Quebec's administrative tribunal are held by videoconference at the Sept-Îles hospital, in my experience. The tribunal members appear by video. The lawyer is present with his client, who must appear once or a few times a year, if I am not mistaken.

Ultimately, the members of the administrative tribunal will determine what course of action should be taken in a case. That is where the problem lies. I will provide more information on this subject in the next few minutes.

I worked for years with clients with mental health problems. Some but not all people with these types of disorders are stubborn about or opposed to being monitored and taking medication. Many of my clients were opposed to taking medication.

One of the criteria for determining whether people are mentally ill is that they are not aware of their own illness. As a result, as soon as they are not being so closely monitored, individuals who do not realize that they are sick tend to stop taking their medication because they do not believe that they are sick and they do not think that they need to take it. This is a fairly volatile client group. These people may simply stop going to their monthly appointments with their psychiatrist and may just vanish.

I have dealt with this type of situation in my practice. The extremely difficult cases I have had to deal with sometimes gave me the shivers. I will not give any identifying information because of privacy concerns. However, some files dealt with necrophilia, arson and extreme violence. Over the years, I was able to help some of these individuals get back on the right track.

Sometimes, once these individuals were released following their hearing before Quebec's administrative tribunal, they vanished because they were not being monitored closely enough.

I have sometimes received calls after a few months or years from the police or from the client himself who is in a fragile mental state but, in a moment of lucidity, called me to find out the status of his case. I would ask him if he was still taking his medication and where he was in Quebec. I wanted to know where he was because I knew he had high potential for violence. I will spare you the details, but they sometimes keep me awake at night.

In short, these individuals decided to run away, which is why I insisted that, at the very least, they be more closely monitored and that their location be tracked in order to prevent them from vanishing.

I also dealt with arson, which is a fairly common occurrence. Those working in the field of psychiatry see all kinds of people. Sometimes it can be interesting to read about these cases.

The cases could give you goosebumps.

Some recent highly publicized cases have called the existing approach into question. So we must refocus the debate on the best interests of victims, while ensuring that the rule of law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are respected.

I plan on returning to practising law sometime in the future. Perhaps I should not say this, but it comes naturally to me to represent these individuals and help them get back on the right track after they are assessed by the people in Montreal. The judge would simply refer the whole thing to Quebec's administrative tribunal.

As I have already said, decisions from this tribunal do not carry a lot of weight, at least not in Sept-Îles. It may be different in a metropolitan or urban area, where the hearings are conducted in person, but that is not the case where I come from. I remember one case in particular, with someone who took off after the hearing and attended only one hearing with the administrative tribunal. Perhaps this person was eventually caught. An arrest warrant may have been issued. The police eventually tracked him down to make sure that he was not in a fragile state of mind, that he was taking his medication properly and did not represent a danger to himself or others. I am thinking of cases of schizophrenia, since people with this illness can be dangerous to themselves and to the general public.

That is something that poses significant problems. I am thinking about a specific case, but I should mention that he was a martial arts expert and he assaulted anyone who tried to go into his cell or into his room in the psychiatric wing. He thought the Hells Angels were coming to the hospital to get him. That is why he punched people, including large men. The hospital uses “code 88” when a patient becomes violent. All of the large men are asked to help out. It may be “code 89”; I cannot remember anymore. There is an internal code at the hospital in Sept-Îles. Whatever the case may be, he punched out five people. He was in pretty good shape.

He was found not criminally responsible because he could not discern right from wrong. He was a victim of his own illusions. However, he was released and no one knew where he was for a while. A few months went by, maybe a year or two, and then he called me about his case. I knew then that he had stopped taking his medication and appearing at hearings.

That is my summary of the risks and implications, which I submit to you.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, one does not gain more credibility by being contemptuous or condescending.

With all the information given here, I would like to know who was consulted about the amendments that Bill C-45 makes to the Navigable Waters Act and other laws.

Did the Conservatives consult with first nations? Did they consult the public? I do not imagine so because, if they had, there would not be so many protests.

Did they consult with fishers? Did they consult with people who live near waterways and who would have claims to make? Did they consult with scientists who make recommendations?

I do not think so because there are still thousands of scientists from all backgrounds who disagree with this legislation, who have written about it and expressed their opinions in the media.

It seems that the people who are happy with these changes are the people from the oil and gas industry. That is not surprising because they are getting exactly what they asked for.

Through the Access to Information Act, we were able to obtain a letter written by the Association of Oil and Gas Producers asking for amendments to the Fisheries Act, the Environmental Assessment Act, the National Energy Board Act and the Navigable Waters Act. What a surprise. No scientists were consulted.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the navigable waters aspect of Bill C-45.

Pollution and climate change are an increasing threat to Canadian waters, yet the government is dismantling environmental safeguards one by one and is withholding essential water quality data from Canadians.

The government stopped protecting waters and enforcing laws years ago. This negligence has been documented time and time again by biologists and the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. In a 2009 report, the commissioner said:

The Department [of Fisheries and Oceans] does not have a systematic approach to monitoring proponents' compliance with the conditions of its project approvals. Nor does it evaluate whether its decisions on mitigating measures and compensation are effective in meeting the no-net-loss principle. As a result, projects may be causing damage to habitat beyond the amount authorized, and mitigating measures and compensation may not be effective.

Instead of changing course and improving the environmental assessment process, the government decided, on the contrary, to axe it. First, Bill C-38 repealed all habitat protection measures and eliminated 99% of environmental studies.

Then, with Bill C-45, waterways are no longer habitats but merely navigable waters. What planet is the government living on? Does it truly believe that rivers and lakes are flat surfaces on which ships simply glide? Is there nothing underneath? Does it think that lakes and rivers do not have water, plants and fish? Come on. The Fisheries and Oceans Canada website clearly says that:

[The Navigable Waters Protection] Act is administered by the Navigable Waters Protection Program (NWPP)/Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

In November, when I asked the government to explain why ministers keep saying that the Navigation Act only deals with navigation, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities gave this reply:

When we talk about navigation, we are talking about the ships that are on the water, not the fish that are floating and swimming in the water.

That is totally absurd. I am not even sure he realizes the absurdity of his answer.

Before it was gutted by Bill C-45, the Navigable Waters Act ensured that bridge or dam construction projects, or any other project, did not interfere with navigation and did not cause environmental damage. This is a critical difference.

The Conservative government is treating our resources as if they were its private property. Worse still, the Conservatives are selling off our navigable waters by allowing anyone to build structures without any idea of the impact of these projects on fish habitat or water quality. This is a utilitarian and dangerous view of the economy and of our resources. It is true that once our waters become polluted and wasted we will not do anything but navigate, because there will no longer be any fish or drinkable water. The government imposed omnibus bills without consultation. The public is worried and aboriginal people are protesting.

Under the new act, only 97 lakes and 62 rivers will be protected. What will the government do when individuals or organizations take legal action to protect their lakes, since this will be the only means still available to them? Who will pay for this pollution? Is it going to be the taxpayers? Will people have to pay for their government's mistakes? And what will happen if projects impact on ecotourism and water quality? What will the government do about that?