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.

Jobs and Growth Act, 2012

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

moved that Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is truly a great honour to start debate on today's legislation, the jobs and growth act, 2012, to implement key provisions of economic action plan 2012.

I am proud to be part of a Conservative government that is absolutely focused on the economy, focused on jobs and squarely focused on securing a better future for our children and our grandchildren. That is exactly what Canadians elected our government to do, as it is exactly what matters to them, especially when we are faced with a global economy that has been exceedingly volatile in recent months.

Economic action plan 2012 and the jobs and growth act, 2012, which implements it, is comprehensive and ambitious because it responds to the magnitude of the challenges that we face. In a fast-changing global economy that remains uncertain and where we face increasing competition from emerging economies such as China and India, delay is not an option in the face of needed economic reform. When promoting Canada around the world, our strong, stable government is consistently praised for its ability to enact needed economic reform and stay focused on the economy.

To completely comprehend the vital importance of our government's economic strength, look no further than the U.S. or Europe, places where narrow-minded political gridlock and instability have too often threatened or delayed vital economic and fiscal reforms. Now is not the time for political gridlock and instability. We must remain focused on the economy.

We are very proud of the steps we are taking in economic action plan 2012, and as we have said, we have absolutely nothing to hide. That is why we want an open, public and timely study.

As always, we have provided a technical briefing directly to officials for all MPs and senators, and I would like to applaud the members for Red Deer, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo and Brossard—La Prairie for staying to the end of the very thorough briefing, which lasted until 1:30 in the morning.

As always, we will provide detailed background notes to all MPs and senators, which are now also available online for all Canadians. As always, there will be detailed committee studies in the House and Senate. Additionally, I am proposing that along with the finance committee in the House, the government side will recommend even further study.

As with previous budget legislation under our government and as we did last spring with the special subcommittee on the first budget implementation act, we will be asking the following 10 committees to look at portions of the bill: health; transport, infrastructure and communities; aboriginal affairs and northern development; agriculture and agri-food; environment and sustainable development; fisheries and oceans; justice and human rights; public safety and national security; human resources, skills and social development and the status of persons with disabilities; and citizenship and immigration.

I will be moving a motion at finance committee to invite those other committees to provide feedback through subject matter studies should the House endorse the legislation at second reading. I really hope the opposition members will give their support at second reading if they genuinely want these committees to study the legislation, instead of just playing political games.

Returning to the debate on the jobs and growth act, Canadians watching at home will witness some very clear differences between our Conservative government and the opposition, and especially the NDP, when it comes to the priorities of Canadians and the direction of the Canadian economy.

From the opposition members, we will hear a lot of talk about process and procedure, or what some would call “inside baseball”, that appeals to a small number of Canadians, mostly located in Ottawa. They talk about process to dictate the exact length of the debate, procedure for the formatted legislation, process for a timeline for a committee study, and on and on.

This talk will be short on facts, big on exaggeration and heavy on partisan spin. In other words, it is really meaningless to the everyday lives of the vast majority of Canadians, especially those Canadians worried about the economy, worried about how global economic uncertainty will impact Canada and how their government is planning to respond.

Instead of debating the issues around the economy, the opposition members would rather debate about debate. While it is disappointing, it is just as well. On the rare occasion when the opposition, especially the NDP, finally gets around to talking about the economy, it is either to badmouth Canadian business or to complain that Canadians are not paying enough taxes.

Canadians should recognize that our Conservative government and the NDP, Liberals, Bloc and the Green Party have fundamentally different views about taxes and the economy. The NDP and its allies believe in bigger governments and higher taxes. That is why those members oppose the over 140 tax cuts we have introduced since coming to power. They opposed reducing the GST. They opposed reducing personal income taxes. They opposed lowering small business taxes. They opposed creating the tax-free savings account. The list goes on and on.

This speaks to a basic and fundamental difference between us. The NDP sees no issue with taking more of the hard-earned money of Canadian families to fund government initiatives, while our Conservative government believes that after a long hard week of work for that construction worker or dental hygienist or police officer, their paycheque is actually their paycheque and it belongs in their pockets, not in the mail to Ottawa to fund the latest NDP big government scheme.

We on this side of the House believe that Canadians pay too much tax. The latest high-tax NDP scheme, its $21 billion carbon tax, is the latest in a string of examples that would dramatically reduce the take-home pay of Canadian families.

Canadians are concerned about the NDP carbon tax proposal. In the words of respected Saskatoon StarPhoenix columnist Les MacPherson from this past March:

[The NDP leader] favours a carbon tax to put a price on so-called greenhouse gas emissions. It would amount to something like a second GST applied on fuel for transportation and heating. In terms of the costs imposed on consumers, it is not far different from [the Liberal] Green Shift plan, widely mocked as the Green Shaft and resoundingly rejected by voters in the 2008 election.

He goes on:

If Canadians four years later now are yearning for higher taxes on gasoline and heating bills, [the NDP leader] could have a winner here.

Or listen to a recent Calgary Herald editorial, which said:

A carbon tax is, quite simply, placing a price on carbon.... Call it what you will—a rose, a daisy, a levy, or a penalty—most reasonable people would call it a tax.... In other words, it’s a tax, and by any other name, the cost will be passed on to consumers.

I could go on and on with these concerns but I will not, because Canadians trust our Conservative government not to tolerate a carbon tax and they know we will vigorously oppose anyone who would try to force a tax scheme such as that onto Canadians.

They also know that our Conservative government will implement low-tax pro-growth initiatives such as economic action plan 2012 to help the economy grow in their communities and help attract jobs, just like the measures contained in today's legislation.

The jobs and growth act, 2012, implements key initiatives of the economic action plan 2012 to help the Canadian economy grow, encourage job creation and ensure Canada's long-term prosperity. This will keep the Canadian economy on the right track and guarantee its strong position.

According to the World Economic Forum, Canada has the soundest banking sector in the world. Forbes magazine says that Canada is the best place in the world in which to do business. The OECD and the IMF predict that our economy will be among the leaders in the industrialized world over the next few years. Our debt to GDP ratio remains the lowest in the G7 by far.

In Canada, approximately 820,000 jobs have been created since July 2009, which is the best job growth record in the entire G7. Furthermore, the three major credit rating agencies, Moody's, Fitch and Standard and Poor's, have reaffirmed our top credit rating.

However, we cannot rest on our laurels. There are many global challenges and uncertainties still facing our economy, especially from Europe. The international recovery is not complete and challenges remain. The global economy remains fragile, and any potential setback would have an impact on Canada. That is why we continue to focus on supporting the economy with our economic action plan 2012, which gives priority to growth.

The jobs and growth act, 2012 strengthens the economy and creates jobs by extending for one more year the hiring credit for small businesses that create jobs.

Over 530,000 employers benefited from this measure last year. The jobs and growth act, 2012 promotes interprovincial trade, improves the legislative framework governing Canada’s financial institutions, facilitates cross-border travel, removes red tape, reduces fees for Canada’s grain farmers and supports Canada’s commercial aviation sector.

The jobs and growth act, 2012 supports families and communities by improving registered disability savings plans, helping Canadians save for retirement by implementing the tax framework for pooled registered pension plans, improving the administration of the Canada pension plan and strengthening the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

The jobs and growth act, 2012 promotes clean energy and enhances neutrality of the tax system by expanding tax relief for investment in clean energy generation equipment and phasing out tax preferences for the mining and oil and gas sectors.

The jobs and growth act, 2012 respects taxpayers’ dollars by taking landmark action to ensure the pension plans for federal public sector employees are sustainable, financially responsible and broadly consistent with the pension products offered in the private sector, and by eliminating tax loopholes and duplication.

Without a doubt, the initiatives I highlighted here, as well as others included in the jobs and growth act, 2012, are positive steps to help Canadians and grow our economy.

In my time remaining, I would like to highlight one of these initiatives and remind Canadians exactly what the NDP and the opposition will be voting against.

This particular measure is aimed at supporting the true engine of job creation in Canada, which is our small businesses. From the local corner store, to the dry cleaner or furniture repair shop, we all know and rely upon local small business for their friendly service.

Our Conservative government firmly believes in the importance of small business. That is why, since forming government in 2006, we have taken important steps to support them: steps that the NDP, with its high-tax, big-government agenda, voted against.

For instance, in recent years we reduced the small business tax to 11%, and increased, for the first time since 1988, the lifetime capital gains exemption to $750,000, to allow capital gains and qualified small business shares to be realized tax free.

However, like all Canadian businesses, small businesses across the country have felt, and continue to feel, the trickle-down effect of the global economic turbulence.

In recognition of these challenges, economic action plan 2012 announced a temporary hiring credit for small business of up to $1,000 per employer. This credit proved wildly successful, providing important relief to small businesses by helping defray the costs of hiring new workers and allowing them to thrive while providing employment in their communities.

Amid continuing global economic uncertainty, and with the urging of small businesses across Canada, our Conservative government moved to extend the temporary hiring credit for small business in economic action plan 2012. Specifically, a credit of up to $1,000 against a small employer's increase in its 2012 EI premiums over those paid in 2011 would be provided. It is estimated that the hiring credit for small business would be available to approximately 536,000 employers whose total EI premiums were at or below $10,000 in 2011, reducing small business 2012 payroll costs by about $205 million.

As I mentioned earlier, this credit has been extremely popular with small businesses across Canada.

As the NDP is looking to vote against this credit, let me share a small sample of that feedback, to help my opposition colleagues fully understand just exactly what they are opposing.

The Yellowknife Chamber of Commerce welcomed the credit's extension, noting:

Yellowknife has a lot of small businesses and one of the most expensive features for any small business owner is labour, and if you could cut down on that cost then you've given them a chance that they can grow their business. We're well in favour of that.

Or listen to the Canadian Convenience Stores Association, which heralded the credit this way. “It helps to provide our owners with resources to keep their businesses more often and for longer hours. Convenience stores provide a unique opportunity for many new Canadians and entrepreneurs to realize their dreams of owning a business, and this credit increases opportunities for them to start employment in the convenience store industry.”

Finally, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business praised the credit as “making it easier for small business to continue to support Canada's economic recovery by creating jobs”.

While I know the NDP does not support low taxes, I must confess my disappointment at the NDP's reaction to the inclusion of this very item in the jobs and growth act, 2012. Just last week, shortly after the introduction of the bill and its provision to extend the job-creating hiring credit for small business, the NDP finance critic blasted this tax relief for small business and our government's record of supporting small business. The NDP finance critic said: “It is yet again an across-the-board cut for small business”.

As I mentioned, the hiring credit will benefit approximately 536,000 small businesses, which is why I am frankly shocked that the NDP would bemoan it, along with tax relief for small business and the Canadians they employ.

Much like the NDP plan to impose a job-killing $21 billion carbon tax scheme on small businesses, this is part and parcel of the NDP's high-tax agenda that would impose higher, crippling taxes on Canadian business and our economy.

That is the fundamental difference between our Conservative government and the NDP and their opposition allies. They have a particular view of how to manage the economy. They want to impose high taxes. They want to close our borders to trade. They want to inflate government bureaucracies. That is fundamentally and absolutely contrary to the principles of this Conservative government. I am proud to be part of a government that feels those are not values that Canadians want to see.

That is why the NDP opposes today's legislation. That is why the NDP opposes economic action plan 2012, despite whatever reasons they may use as a smokescreen to suggest otherwise.

Canadians can rest assured that our Conservative government will move ahead with today's legislation, economic action plan 2012 and our low-tax, pro-growth, job-creating agenda.

I would implore opposition members to listen to what is in the second budget implementation act, because it does exactly what I have just mentioned. It does create jobs. It does help Canadians to prosper. It does make us a better country, and it really does affect every single thing that we do to help Canadians do better.

If the NDP and the Liberal Party, along with the independents and the Green Party member, continue to say they intend to vote against this, I would ask Canadians to start asking their members of Parliament from the opposition benches why in fact they are doing so. I do not understand it. I cannot believe it. I am sure Canadians are just as shocked as I am. I would invite Canadians to write to their members of Parliament to voice their opinions.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the parliamentary secretary for her intensely partisan and very fictional speech. She talked about the NDP. She did not talk about the government's record.

Why? It is because we know the government's record. There have been half a million manufacturing jobs that have evaporated over the last few years on the Conservative watch; 400,000 more people are unemployed than when the Conservatives came to power. There's a 2% real reduction in wages that we have seen across Canada, from coast to coast to coast. Families are struggling more and more to make ends meet.

The International Monetary Fund this year ranked Canada 152nd in economic growth. If a team finishes 25th or 30th in a league, the coach is fired. When a team finishes 152nd, the whole team is fired, and that is just what the NDP and Canadians are going to do in 2015.

We have a budget speech for a budget that predicts a loss of 43,000 jobs. That is why the Conservatives cannot speak to their record, and that is why they cannot speak to the budget.

My simple question is, given the lamentable record of the government, given that 43,000 jobs are predicted to be lost as a result of this budget, why do the Conservatives not get back to work and redo what they have done wrong?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the comments. I want to say first and foremost that this government is seen around the world as having one of the best reputations following—and I hope they got the memo—the global recession. That is what the NDP seems to forget. The opposition members seem to forget that there was a global recession.

As I said in my speech, which obviously my colleague was not around to listen to, and I will repeat, the World Economic Forum says that our banks are the soundest in the world. Forbes magazine ranks Canada as the best country in the world to do business. OECD and the IMF predict that our economy will be among the leaders of the industrialized world over the next two years.

The words are important: “industrialized world”. We compare to other countries who are in the industrialized world. That is why we are number one.

Let us continue. Our net debt-to-GDP ratio remains the lowest in the G7, by far. Let us not listen to the misleading comments made across the way. When it comes to job creation, we have created over 820,000 net new jobs. We have the best job growth record in the entire G7. Nothing that the NDP members can say will change that. They can be jealous all they want. We are going to continue on our job creation plans.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for her remarks. However, I think she has missed some of the most egregious parts of the bill.

I want to ask her why the government felt it was necessary to gut the 1882 Navigable Waters Protection Act, which was never mentioned in the March 2012 budget, by removing protection for navigation rights that Canadians have had for over 130 years? Why was it necessary to remove those? They have not been blocking jobs and growth in the economy. They have been ensuring that the millions of Canadian lakes and the thousands and thousands of Canadian rivers, now reduced to 62 rivers and 97 lakes, received some protection from our navigable waters constitutional jurisdiction of the federal government.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague pointed out, this is an act from 1882. This is an act that is supposed to concentrate on navigation and commercial shipping. Under our newest bill, we are going to change the name from Navigable Waters Protection Act to the Navigation Protection Act. Why are we doing this? It is because it was designed to protect navigation. It was designed specifically to create jobs and to help make sure that when we are regulating things, for instance, the construction of bridges, making sure shoreline construction moves ahead, that we have some measures in place to allow that to happen in a timely manner.

We have a number of other bills that cover off environmental concerns. We have a number of other bills that cover off other scenarios that have been mentioned by the opposition. However, members need to focus on what this bill is about. The intent of the bill is about navigation and commercial shipping, point final. That is what it is about. That is why we are going to focus on it.

The common law covers every single other lake and river that the hon. member is concerned about. She can rest assured that we have taken care of business. Common law is going to apply, as well as the Navigation Protection Act, so that everything is covered.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance for her fine speech introducing the implementation bill. This is the second implementation bill, and viewers at home should know that the budget is presented as a policy document and then there are two implementation bills, one in the spring and one in the fall.

Today we are starting the discussion on implementing the second half of the budget that has been passed by the House of Commons. I want to make the point that it has been passed.

One of the items in the budget that we passed in the spring, and was not in the first implementation bill but is in the second, was to deal with the small business tax credit to help small businesses employ more people to create jobs.

Why is it important for Canada to continue to support small businesses in their growth and employment?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is very important because, as I stated in my speech, small business is the motor that keeps us growing here in Canada.

We introduced the hiring tax credit in budget 2011 because we wanted to help small businesses to hire people and make their businesses grow. Over 534,000 businesses took advantage of the hiring tax credit because they wanted to grow their business, help the economy grow and ensure that Canadians enjoyed the values and freedoms that we presently enjoy.

Putting an extension on the budget 2011 proposal is important because businesses depend on it. They have said that it is popular, that they have used it to their advantage and that they would like to do more to help Canada prosper.

We believe in small business so much that we lowered the small business tax rate to 11%. Unfortunately, the opposition voted against that. However, we on this side will continue to support small business and get all of that wonderful feedback that I mentioned in my speech earlier from those small businesses.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, the minister suggested that this implementation bill contained no surprises. Was I ever surprised when I discovered what was in it that was not in the budget.

The Labour Code was never mentioned in the budget and yet the minister has decided to introduce in this budget implementation bill major changes to the way vacation pay is calculated in the Labour Code which would reduce the amount payable to some individuals. It is a tax.

The Navigable Waters Protection Act was never mentioned in the budget bill. The Minister of Foreign Affairs suggested that we could find it on page 282 of the budget bill. However, that is not true. It was not there.

In addition, there are tax increases in the budget bill. The government keeps saying that it is a “no-tax government” but there are tax increases. The biggest and most important one is the fact that the scientific research and experimental development tax credit would be reduced. Therefore, 25,000 businesses that rely on that tax credit would have their pockets picked to the tune of $40 million, which is absolutely not--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have answered these questions from my colleagues on the other side many times. Questions such as: What page is it on in the budget?

Quite frankly, I am shocked. By now, we have given them every page through a briefing that lasted six and a half hours and they are still asking this. I will refresh their memories as to where they are.

The Navigable Waters Protection Act is on page 282. This is a DRAP measure. It is clearly indicated on page 282. I would suggest that the member actually look at the annex part of the page because that is exactly where it is.

On the Canada Labour Code, it is also a deficit reduction action plan measure that would help this government reduce costs by $5.2 billion. That is on page 270.

Once again, I would encourage the members across the way to do their homework.

On the SR&ED tax credit, I will be very clear. We have spoken with industry about clarifications to this tax credit. It is very complex and we are doing exactly what we intended to do, which is to clarify some of those measures to help these businesses ensure that they can apply successfully.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

At this time it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, Science and Technology; the hon. member for Manicouagan, Aboriginal Affairs; the hon. member for York South—Weston, Telecommunications Industry.

Resuming debate. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, in life, as in politics, everything revolves around whether we have credibility. I will read page 282 of the budget, because that is what my colleague was referring to. So we, along with all the Canadians who are watching, will know whether page 282 of the budget mentions the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

In life, as in politics, everything revolves around whether we have credibility. The member just told us that on page 282 of the budget we would find a reference to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. I will now read page 282 of the budget. Under “Transport Portfolio”, it states:

Organizations in the Transport portfolio identified a combination of productivity-enhancing and transformative measures that change the way programs and services are delivered and support the Government's agenda of refocusing government and reducing red tape.

I ask members to retain that term because, in the Conservatives' mouths, reducing red tape is synonymous with reducing public protection. Walkerton, XL Foods and listeriosis is reducing public protection. That is a theme we will be talking a lot about this afternoon. I will continue.

Non-core activities will be reduced while maintaining capacity related to core mandates in order to protect the safety of Canadians and support economic growth.

For example, VIA Rail Canada Inc. will pursue productivity improvements such as augmenting the performance of the heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems....

Navigable Waters Protection Act? Not so far.

...on-board trains to reduce maintenance costs, reduce energy consumption, and increase passenger comfort. It will also implement automation projects such as electronic ticketing and invoicing systems.

Navigable waters? I have not heard it.

“Planned Savings--Transport Portfolio. Canadian Air Transport Security Authority--”

This is kind of interesting because this is where it starts cutting, like it cut the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, where it cut things that directly protect Canadians' health and safety. Here we have cuts ongoing of $59.7 million. We have Marine Atlantic, the Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Inc. cut. The Champlain Bridge is about to fall down but it is going to cut. It goes on to mention Transport Canada and VIA Rail Canada and there is a note at the bottom of the page that states:

The Government is committed to balance air travel security expenses with Air Travellers Security Charge revenues over time. Totals may not add due to rounding.

Members may have noticed that there was no reference whatsoever in there to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. What is up?

What is up is this. On the website of the Department of Transport, under the heading Navigable Waters Protection Act, there is a summary of what that centennial legislation does. It is groundbreaking. It is a model for the world of how to protect the environment. Canada has literally millions of lakes and tens of thousands of rivers. It is constitutionally the purview, the responsibility and the obligation of the federal government, specifically in the Constitution Act, 1867, to care for navigable and floatable waters.

I have the wording straight from the website. By the way, the website was changed last night after my colleague, the member Halifax, raised it yesterday afternoon. This is pure Orwellian. The Conservatives make things disappear when it does not agree with the version they have decided to concoct and invent. It states:

The NWPA minimizes the interference of navigation on navigable waters throughout Canada. It ensures a balance between the public right to navigate and the need to build works such as bridges, dams or docks in navigable waters.

With this goal in mind, the NWPA:

prohibits the throwing or depositing of any material into navigable waters.

That stops people from polluting waters in Canada. It sounds like environmental protection to me, but obviously the member has never quite gotten around to reading the act. It is there. It is one of the statutes of Canada. It is alphanumeric. It works with the alphabet, N-22.

What is “Substantial Interference”? The application reads:

This approval process is usually longer, requiring you to complete additional steps – including advertising the proposed project to the public and undertaking an environmental assessment in accordance with the requirements under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA).

That is another act that the Conservatives are destroying with their budget. There is no mention, but in the budget implementation act, as they did in the spring with Bill C-38, they are destroying it again. They are removing environmental assessments in Canada. We will go from thousands of environmental assessments every year in Canada to a couple of dozen. That is because it is a preordained result. They started making the mistake in energy projects. They were no longer referring to the environmental assessment process. They were talking about the approval process. It was a slip of the tongue but it was really revealing.

The Supreme Court of Canada in the Oldman River dam case, a decision by Mr. Justice Lamer on behalf of the court, made it abundantly clear that there was no possibility of building a project like that unless the environment was respected. That was a landmark case in Canada and it was based on the Navigable Waters Protection Act. It is so incredibly mind-numbing to hear the Minister of Transport say that the Navigable Waters Protection Act has never had anything to do with the environment, it has to do with navigation. It is unbelievable. It has protected water courses throughout our history, it is a model for the world, it is being destroyed and it was never in the budget.

I listened to some of the economic theories of the government. This week, in The Hill Times, a reputable publication if there is one, the expert economist David Crane published an interesting paper entitled, “Resources are important but they're not enough”. It is worth going through the words of Mr. Crane. He stated:

The strongest economy is one that is well-diversified, both in its sources of economic growth and in its markets. Ignoring the need for a vibrant advanced manufacturing industry and high-value knowledge-based services, as well as a resource sector that upgrades it[s] output in Canada, is a recipe for disaster.

He goes on to look, chapter and verse, through all of the things that the member who just spoke bragged about as being the Conservatives' economic theory and dismantles it. He shows that, what we have been saying for years now, Canada is losing the balanced economy that we had painstakingly built up since the Second World War, we are losing an economy that had a strong and vibrant resource sector, a primary sector that includes agriculture and the fishery, but it also had a diverse and strong manufacturing sector and, of course, a service sector.

Since the Conservatives came to power, we have lost hundreds of thousands of good paying manufacturing jobs, jobs that came with enough of a salary for a family to live on and, more often than not, came with a pension. Those jobs are being replaced by part-time precarious work in the service sector and, more important, no pension. In addition to the environmental debt that we are leaving in the backpacks of future generations, the one I just described, allowing companies to use our air, soil and water as an unlimited free dumping ground, we are also leaving a social debt because when those people retire without enough to live on, who will pick up the tab? It will be the next generation. If we allow the Conservatives to continue, we will become the first generation in Canadian history to leave less to the next generation than what we ourselves received. We will not let that happen.

The last time the Conservatives took to shoving one of their omnibus bills down the throats of Canadians, it was Bill C-38 last spring.

This bill is the continuation of what the Conservatives started last spring. Once they started and we realized that dozens of different laws were going to be negatively affected, along with the rights of Canadians and future generations, members on this side of the House tried to make use of the tools at our disposal as parliamentarians. We were facing an unprecedented situation in the history of Canada's Parliament.

Having a majority is not unprecedented. In fact, majority governments were the norm until just recently. What is new is having a government that is so arrogant and so unwilling to listen to the public that it thinks it is an emperor.

It did not need anyone. It no longer needed to talk with anyone. We are here to voice the concerns of our constituents. We are here to be heard.

In response to a question, the hon. member for Saint Boniface asked us earlier if we were aware of the global recession. I would remind the member that it was her Minister of Finance who, in the middle of that global crisis in the fall of 2008, denied its existence and refused to take action. Talk about arrogance.

Their complete lack of priorities means that instead of trimming the fat from government as needed, they are hacking and slashing away with a rusty machete. They have never defined their priorities, quite simply because they are just happy to be in power. They like to be in power, but they do not like to govern. What is the difference? One is the mere fact of occupying the most seats in the House, while the other requires competence in public administration in the interest of Canadians, and not in the interest of their Conservative cronies.

They do not have any priorities. Their most recent 450-page budget bill affects 64 other bills, including 20 that were not even mentioned in last spring's budget. As we just demonstrated, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, like 19 other acts, is not even mentioned in the budget.

As I said earlier, it is a question of credibility for the government. Let us look at some of the facts. Let us look at some examples of its public administration and measure them against what should be considered public priorities.

What could be more important than protecting the health and, indeed, the lives of Canadians? If we look at the whole pyramid of public administration, it ultimately exists to provide one thing: a service to the public. What service could be more important than public protection?

What is in the budget bill is a $46.6 million cut to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. That is in here, word for word. The Conservatives talk about things that are not in here, but I am talking about things that are in here, and this is at page 261. It is in there.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Is there a carbon tax in there?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

One of the brilliant members of the peanut gallery has just asked a question that I am pleased to respond to. His question was, is there a carbon tax in there? That is interesting, because where we will find a cap and trade system proposed is in the 2008 platform of the Conservative Party.

[An hon. member]

Say it isn't so.

[An hon. member]

That can't be.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

But it's not in that bill.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

What is interesting is that in 2008, the Conservative Prime Minister went to the mother of all parliaments and told the parliamentarians there that it was his plan to have a cap and trade system. He even put a price on carbon. He put a $65-a-tonne price on carbon, in front of the parliament.

Far be it from us to think for a second that in the mother of all parliaments he was telling the mother of all fibs, so let us take him at his word.

In 2008, it was actually a bit less. However, if we take the figure for 2008 at $65 a tonne, do members know what that equates to in Canada? About $45 billion.

If we were in the same business as the brilliant and talented member who just spoke from the netherworld of the backbenches of the Conservatives, we would be able to argue that it was a carbon tax of $45 billion. However, that would not be quite true, because it was a cap and trade system and the only way of dealing with greenhouse gases.

The member for Saint Boniface quoted a newspaper writer who talked about so-called greenhouse gas emissions. That is quite something, because it betrays a fundamental belief of the troglodytes that somehow greenhouse gases are something that one believes in. They do not really exist. There is no such thing really, as far as the Conservatives are concerned, as global warming. It is just something that is being made up to scare people, or in the unforgettable words of the Conservative Prime Minister when he was describing the Kyoto protocol, he said it was something invented “to suck money out of wealth-producing nations”. There was no such thing as global warming, so no action was needed.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

We can hear them, Mr. Speaker. They are saying “Hear, hear”. There we go. They are excited. I would like to know how much greenhouse gas emissions come from suntan salons, for example. Maybe we could reduce those as well.

The Conservatives' tactics include 450 pages, 64 separate acts, with 20 that were never in the budget, no study, no accountability, no consultation with the Canadians affected and no respect for Canadians, who deserve better.

The basic job of every person elected to the House is to make sure that public money is being well spent, to make sure legislation is rational and well thought out. That is our job. We have given ourselves institutions to help ourselves do that.

For example, under the Parliament of Canada Act we now have a Parliamentary Budget Officer who has the legal right to receive all financial information so he can inform our debates in the public interest. The Conservatives boast about the fact that they brought that position in via their responsibility act. They have never obeyed it any more than they have obeyed the fixed dates for elections. This is the art of being a Conservative: A conservative stands on a soapbox, announces what he or she is going to do, and then does the exact opposite.

The Conservatives are denying what is written in Canadian law. They are going against the will of Parliament. They are frustrating the ability of the Parliamentary Budget Officer to do the job he was asked to do, indeed mandated to do by law in the public interest, simply because he has stood up to them time and again. He refuses to be another one of their marionettes parroting lines written for him by the Prime Minister's Office. Of course, for that he must be punished as far as they are concerned.

The Conservatives are using omnibus legislation to sneak past Canadians hundreds of changes to these different acts, and we will not let them do it.

The latest incarnation of this mammoth bill includes budget cuts, including to various organizations, commissions and boards that were put in place to ensure greater responsibility and accountability. This strong tendency, which began in the spring, only persists. They are putting more and more powers into the hands of various ministers and departments.

For example, the Conservatives are eliminating the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission, which helped protect workers from hazardous materials in the workplace. That is not something the Conservatives talked about in the budget. It is going to have an effect on workers' lives. We will stand up and fight this every step of the way.

They are repealing the Grain Appeal Tribunal. This is interesting because that tribunal actually helped producers by giving them a right of appeal when they had been given a grade for their wheat and they did not agree with it.

It is the same government that said that it was going to scrap the wheat board. There was never any logical reason for it.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

We did scrap the wheat board.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

One of the ministers from Winnipeg just said that they did scrap the wheat board, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately for him, he is going off his talking points, because the talking point is not that they scrapped it but that they made it better. He just told us that they did scrap it. Whoopsie. More reading for the suntan salon.

The Conservatives dissolved the Canada EI Financing Board, leaving the employment insurance account $9 billion in deficit.

The cabinet takes even more power to rule on environmental assessments and pipelines even while firing the scientists who give them expert advice.

Of course, it is the government that decided during the summer that it was the new church of Conservative scientists. Let us remember what the Conservatives said during the summer: they told us that from now on they had decided they were going to believe in science. How did they prove that? They fired most of the scientists in the government, because they were not needed any more as the Conservatives were now the scientists. The ones the government did not fire were muzzled.

The government is getting rid of things like the Experimental Lakes Area, which is the only place on planet Earth where whole lake ecosystems can be studied. The government is scrapping it.

What do we get from the Conservatives?

The government has an imitator at the other end of the House. He is constantly imitating the newscaster who is given documents to read and does not even know what is in them. He stands up and tells us time and time again that there is really no problem with the Experimental Lakes Area. He says that as long as someone is willing to buy it, it can continue.

Let us imagine. How can we have government scientists doing science in an area that belongs to all Canadians if it is sold to private interests? That is the road the government wants to take us down.

Our very own Ron Burgundy stands up time and time again and reads whatever is put in front of him by the Prime Minister's Office. He does not even know what is written on the piece of paper and does not realize how absurd it is. He is the same person who now believes that Canada is in a situation to actually reduce greenhouse gases and meet its undertakings under international agreements. Nothing could be further from the truth. The government will not be able to meet any of those obligations, because it does not even have a plan to meet them.

As I mentioned earlier, with regard to public safety, there is a pyramid of public administration that exists to protect the public.

When cuts have to be made, the very last things that should be affected are direct services to the public. What are we seeing instead? What did I point out earlier? The Conservatives are making $47 million in cuts to food safety, over $100 million in cuts to air safety and cuts to maritime search and rescue centres. We are talking about services that literally save lives, and the Conservatives are making cuts to them. The Conservatives should ask the people of Quebec City and Kitsilano what they think about this.

The Conservatives are making cuts to the Coast Guard and border security. These are things we are extremely concerned about.

Earlier today, we had the opportunity to listen to the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead describe exactly what is happening at the border in his riding. This is what it means to have no priorities. This is what it means to have no understanding of public administration.

Earlier, I listened to the fantasies and fabrications of the hon. member for Saint Boniface. She painted an imagined picture of what she believes is our approach to public administration.

When we look at the official opposition's experience and the F-35 debacle—a file for which the Conservatives never bothered to assess Canada's needs, never held a competitive bidding process and never determined who the lowest compliant bidder was, and on which they have spent $700 million to date when this aircraft does not even meet Canada's needs—we realize which side of the House the competent MPs are on. It is certainly not the Conservative side. The Conservatives are a bunch of incompetents. Their negligence is disgraceful. We will replace them in 2015.

This week, as 1.3 million pounds of contaminated, tainted meat was being dumped in an Alberta landfill, who was the minister? It was the same minister who four years ago told lame jokes about death by a thousand cold cuts as 23 Canadians died because he had not done his job of putting in place a competent food inspection system.

When the opposition unanimously called for his resignation, who stood up and defended him? The Prime Minister.

This is no longer a question of the incompetent Minister of Agriculture; it is a question of the Prime Minister who is endangering public safety by allowing him to stay in place.

The Minister of Agriculture has absolved himself of any responsibility by saying that he did not carry out the inspections. This is the same gang that every day keeps harping about the queen, everything royal and the monarchy. If they have such nostalgia for the queen, they should think about other parliamentary institutions, the British institutions, where the underpinning of the British parliamentary system is ministerial accountability. It is the minister who is responsible, not the inspectors. It is the minister who did not do his job and who did not ensure that the inspectors were protecting the public. He should be booted out; he is ultimately responsible.

The minister knew about the safety violations at XL Foods. He knew the company was withholding testing data. He knew the Americans had deemed the plant unsafe. In fact, we would never have known about any of this if it had not been for the Americans doing their job of inspecting the meat at the border. Good thing we have the American inspectors as whistleblowers. It took him two more weeks to sound the alarm after the Americans already knew.

Budget cuts of $46.6 million and 300 positions cut is in the budget. Unlike the fantasy about the Navigable Waters Protection Act, that is in the budget: 300 positions cut at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, public protection endangered, Canadian lives endangered.

He dares to point at others. He points at the inspectors and says that it is their fault. Here is where the fault lies. Instead of enforcing legislation in the public interest, instead of doing as the Americans do, going in and enforce, the Conservatives have a self-reporting system. Maybe that is where they got their marks in university. They gave themselves their own marks. They reported their own results to their teachers. Maybe that is what it is. It is the only way to explain it. We do not ask people we are supposed to be enforcing and inspecting to tell us whether they are actually doing it. With public money, we send in inspectors, check them, enforce and regulate in the public interest.

The result is a hit for our farmers and our producers. It is a hit for public confidence in our food system. Everyone loses because the Conservatives are not doing their jobs.

In spite of 50 years of economic growth in our country, the Prime Minister would have us believe that the institutions, the services and the programs we have relied on for generations have suddenly become too expensive and that we can no longer afford them. There is a link between the fact that he is constantly reducing the government's fiscal capacity and the fact that he is now imposing service cuts. In essence, our economic growth is constant, and our institutions reflect what is best about ourselves. These institutions are now at risk because of the negligence, the incompetence of the Conservatives.

Just for fun, let us take a look at this statistic: the small number of chartered banks recorded profits of $33 billion this year. It is a virtual monopoly, an oligopoly. There is no need to be self-congratulatory and proudly remark that they are extraordinary. There are only a few banks in Canada. They have a monopoly and can charge whatever interest rate they want. It is nonsense to say that they are private market wizards. Thirty-three billion dollars in profit equates to $1,000 for every man, woman and child in Canada. Every year, the chartered banks make $1,000 in profit for every Canadian man, woman and child. That does not make sense.

There are institutions that define who we are as a nation.

We are so proud that the NDP, under Tommy Douglas, was responsible for bringing free, universal, public, portable and accessible medical care to our country. We do not think any Canadian family should ever have to choose between having a sick child seen by a doctor and being able to put groceries on the table. I honestly believe there are more things we have in common as individuals than the partisanship on the other side would have us believe. I honestly believe the vast majority of the people who sit across from me in the government benches agree that it is a good thing we do not have an American-style system, that it is a good thing, as Canadians, we take care of each other.

At the beginning I said that is why it was so important to look at the gulf that separated the words of the Conservatives and their actions. In June 2011, shortly after we formed the official opposition, these were a couple of last questions that Jack Layton asked. He asked two very specific questions of the Prime Minister.

First he asked, “Are you going to cut health care?” The answer was categorical. It is in Hansard and is easy to check, “We will not be reducing transfers to health care”. In December of the same year, barely a few months later, during a meeting with his provincial counterparts, the Minister of Finance, over lunch, and it was not even an agenda item, sometime between his coffee and his apple pie, looked over the table and said that he would be removing $36 billion from the projected and budgeted health care transfers from the feds to the provinces. There was no negotiation, no debate, no discussion, straight diktat from the federal government to the provinces. That is the way of the Conservatives. That is not our way.

The other question that Jack Layton asked the Prime Minister in June had to do with pensions. This is what I would call in French, une demi-vérité ou plutôt un demi-mensonge, because it is an art that Conservatives master. It is around, for example, the F-35s. The Minister of National Defence will often go to his microphone and say that not one penny has been spent on F-35 acquisitions—

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt because I hate to rise on points of order, but I would allow the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw his comment about a half-lie. That is unparliamentary language. He knows it. He ought to abide by the rules, and I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to enforce the rules by asking him to withdraw that unparliamentary comment.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I believe all hon. members are familiar with the rules of this place and I would ask all hon. members to avoid unparliamentary language.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all we have to do is listen to the Minister of National Defence when he stands on the F-35s. The Conservatives have spent $700 million to date and then he stands and says that not one penny has been spent on the F-35 acquisition. Of course he cannot acquire it. It does not exist yet. There is only a paper machier version that he uses for press conferences. The Conservatives have started to master that type of thing.

When the Prime Minister responded to Jack Layton's specific question “Are you going to cut pensions”?, his hand on his heart, the Prime Minister said, “We will not be cutting pensions”. When Conservatives added two more years and took $13,000 out of the pockets of five million old security recipients, what did the Minister of Finance have the temerity to stand and say? He said that the government said it would not touch pensions, but it never said it would not touch old age security. What a rim shot.

This is the Conservative way, as if the amount of money seniors get to live on after retirement was not generically the pension for the average Canadian, that is unbelievable hypocrisy. There are certain measures of the civilization that we live in, of the society that we live in. In a country as rich as Canada, it is unthinkable that we have hundreds of thousands of elderly who have worked all their lives living in poverty. We will change that.

How is it possible that after 900 pages of budget bills we are not doing anything to deal with situations like the third world conditions in places like Attawapiskat? How is it possible in a country as rich as Canada that we still allow those third world conditions to continue—

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I really am someone who hates to rise on points of order, but I need to understand something very clearly.

The official opposition leader said the word “demi-mensonge”. Is it the ruling of the Speaker that is in fact unparliamentary? If it is, the member must withdraw or apologize.

I do not want to interrupt again, but he needs to do the right thing if that is the ruling of the Chair.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I appreciate the point of order from the parliamentary secretary. As I said a few minutes ago, I would urge all hon. members to avoid unparliamentary language. There is a practice in the House that there are certain words that are clearly avoided and are not acceptable. There are others that are in a grey area in terms of whether they are direct or indirect.

In my view, in this case, the hon. Leader of the Opposition did not cross that line, but he was in that area. Therefore, I would ask all hon. members to obey the rules as they are commonly practised in this place.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for your ruling in this regard and remind you that this complaint is coming from the person who, earlier, referred us to page 282 of the budget, saying that it had to do with the Navigable Waters Protection Act when such is not the case.

The changes in the budget change the rules of the game for teachers and engineers. What we are trying to say about employment insurance is that, from now on, people will have to look for jobs located up to an hour away from where they live, otherwise they will lose their benefits. This is an unbelievable threat to industries that depend on seasonal workers.

For example, what are people in Atlantic Canada who work in the fishery supposed to do if the minister is saying that, from now on, they have to move? Someone cannot train to be a fisher in five hours, five days or even five months. It takes several seasons to train someone to work on a boat. The government is already draining these communities of their lifeblood because of our artificially high dollar. All our export industries are suffering terribly. This is being felt in Atlantic Canada in particular.

Governing also means understanding the country, the regional differences and the different regional needs. Rather than making allowances for that, the Conservatives are applying the same remedy everywhere. They are attacking regions that are sorely in need of a helping hand. Instead of that help, these regions are getting hit hard. That is what the Conservatives are doing.

What is more, the Conservatives are creating an economy where salaries will be much lower. There is less pressure with regard to all working conditions because of a series of measures that are being implemented. It is not by chance that, for the first time in Canada's history, the middle class has seen a clear drop in income, and this occurred in tandem with the signing of NAFTA.

Over the past 25 years, the middle class has seen its real net income drop. This is the first time this has happened. In other words, the richest 20% of Canadians are experiencing a rise in income while the other 80% of Canadians—it has been measured and proven—are experiencing a drop in income. These are the results of the neo-conservative policies of the current government and its Liberal predecessors, who aggressively pursued the same goals for 25 years.

This is putting downward pressure on incomes and on employment conditions. As though that were not enough, these agreements are creating a race to the bottom: temporary foreign workers who used to come and work in a few sectors, such as produce farms, will now be in several employment categories. The government trumpets the fact that we can pay them a lot less than Canadians. People are working hard in mines and many other sectors and what is the result? One simply has to go visit the steelworkers in Prince George, British Columbia, to see what kind of pressure they are under. It is hard work. They work hard their entire lives. They fought hard for fair wages only to be told that the Conservatives are going to force them to work two years longer before they can retire. Then, as though these workers did not have enough pressure on them, the Conservatives want to bring in workers from other countries and pay them lower wages, and this adds even more downward pressure. That is the Canada the Conservatives dream of, where workers are subjected to working conditions from the early 1900s. That is their vision.

The NDP wants to build a fair Canada. We hear appalling speeches, like the one we heard earlier, suggesting that our dream is heresy. A country as rich as Canada is capable of paying for decent working conditions, and that is part of what an NDP government will bring.

That is the path that the Conservatives are paving for us.

Do not forget that Bill C-38, the Conservatives' budget bill in the spring, repealed the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. That is their vision.

They are not attacking one particular group or sector. Their goal is to drive down wages for all Canadians, a total lack of an economic plan. The government is not just failing workers but businesses that create jobs too. Canada faces a perfect storm of economic challenges. We have 500,000 lost manufacturing jobs, a $50 billion trade deficit, household debt at an all-time high, the worst American downturn since the Great Depression, and we are still in the middle of a eurozone crisis.

When we talk to Conservatives about the interest that we have in using our experience, our expertise and our capability to help in Europe, we get the usual talking points of “You want us to write a big cheque to Europe”. What imbecility. As if the idea of using our experience and our expertise to help avoid a crisis that will invariably negatively affect us is something wrong.

Yet those are the talking points that come out of the PMO because they make stuff up. That is all they have. They have nothing else. They make up pages in the budget and they make up plans for the NDP that have never existed, other than the ones that were the same ones they had. They make stuff up all day long because they cannot defend what they are actually doing. That is what we are talking about now, what is actually in here, what they are actually doing and the negative effect it is having on Canadian workers across the country.

What an irony Bill C-45 is. The jobs and growth act does not contain a plan to generate either. Budget 2012 kills more jobs than it creates. It contains no strategy for the 1.4 million out-of-work Canadians. The so-called centrepiece of the economic plan is the small business tax credit, which members can applaud because the NDP supports a tax credit. It was part of our 2011 platform. This one does not go far enough. It is worth a maximum of $1,000 and it lasts just one year. At best, it may be enough to help companies hire one full-time employee. It will not even make a dent in our lagging job numbers.

The truth is that the government continues its failed policy of lavish corporate tax cuts, even as companies ship jobs overseas. For example, one company demanded a 50% pay cut and shut its doors after receiving $5 million from the Conservatives. It was called Electro-Motive Diesel in London. I got to visit the workers on the picket line in the middle of the winter. It was an extraordinary experience because just a few months earlier a beaming Prime Minister had been out there with a $5 million cheque, because this was evidence of the success of his plan for jobs in Canada.

As soon as that election campaign was over, there was a little meeting. The bosses sat down and said, “We have a deal for you. You accept a 50% pay cut or we move your jobs south of the border”. The company closed, the jobs have been moved, it kept the $5 million and there are no longer any jobs in Canada. That is the Conservative plan.

Thirty years ago a young worker could work his or her way up a company ladder. Now workers have many different jobs in a lifetime. The incentive to invest in workers is being lost. A large workforce is no longer a sign of pride. A couple of generations ago, someone who was running a big company would be very proud and take great pride in stating the numbers in his workforce. Now the great pride is saying how many of those jobs were shipped to another country. That is the change. We have to get back to a feeling in Canada that it is a social responsibility to be proud to be creating good-paying jobs.

Why do we keep doing what the Conservatives do, investing in companies like Electro-Motive Diesel that do not invest in our workforce? This is the type of short-sightedness that we see all over Bill C-45.

For example, under the changes to the scientific research and experimental development tax credit, the program would be cut. The $500 million a year that it costs would be eliminated, but it would also reduce government support for business research and development at a time when businesses need to increase innovation to compete.

To put it another way, if we cannot get the Conservatives to do the right thing because it is the right thing, let us try to get them to do the right thing because it is actually good for the economy. The only way to increase wealth in our society is to increase knowledge, and this is the dumbing down of Canadian business. That is the Conservative legacy. It is going to hit manufacturing particularly hard at a time when they need a little oxygen to keep going.

We need tailored incentives that better serve businesses and our economy as a whole. There are a couple of good examples that can be looked at in Canada where long-term vision and incentive by the government has produced a great result.

For example, take a look at the TV and film industry in Toronto. There used to be a time when it was only New York and Hollywood. Now, Toronto is in there competing with them every step of the way, but it required a partnership between government, business and labour. Those tax incentives were there for decades and they worked their way through the system and are producing the great result of bringing in billions of dollars a year and lots of high-quality jobs. However, it required government involvement every step of the way. The Conservatives simply do not believe in that.

We should be building the next success story now. Instead, we are getting less for workers, less for Canadians and less for our economy. That is what the Conservatives are about, less for everyone.

In the business environment there should be the creation of a climate for growth. We have to ensure predictability. However, look at the catastrophe this week with the sale of a gas company. The government cannot even give the criteria on which the decision was based and it released its decision at 11:57 p.m. on a Friday.

The Conservatives cannot explain the decision. They have to hide it. Then when they come back into the House, they go back to their talking points and keep referring to the statute, but the decision uses criteria that are not in the statute. How is a foreign company looking to invest in Canada supposed to make an intelligent decision? We saw the effect on the stock market immediately on Monday. Stocks were getting pummelled. People do not know. This is a government that boasts about being close to business, but its actual decisions are hurting business.

This lack of predictability is something that we would change. We would clarify the rules for foreign investment. We would welcome investments and trade as long as it was reciprocal, responsible and fair.

What concerns us the most is that since 2009, there has been a strong trend towards eviscerating anything that has to do with environmental protection in Canada. In 2009, the government even did away with one of the first steps, which was the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

I remember that the Minister of Foreign Affairs called it the greatest job killer. We were confused. At the time, we told ourselves that it was not possible to pit the environment against the economy, since the past 50 years have shown us that they go hand in hand, because both of these things must progress together.

I remember being speechless in parliamentary committee, when I saw the Liberal Party vote with the Conservatives for the first time to start dismantling the Navigable Waters Protection Act. That was in 2009. That continued in 2010 and 2011, based on what we are seeing here. They are getting rid of the protections that are so important for everyone.

But the businesses themselves are the ones that want some predictability in all of this. They do not want to end up being told that they did not fulfill their obligations.

Instead of enforcing federal environmental protection legislation, such as the Fisheries Act, the Species at Risk Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, and so on, what are they doing? They are gutting these laws and changing them completely.

This is interesting, because we know that there are procedures, processes and ways of doing things, particularly in the oil sands, where the federal government no longer enforces these laws. The lack of enforcement will cause more degradation of ecosystems.

This government claims to be a law and order government. Normally, when a company violates the law, we force it to change its practices. But the Conservatives instead change the law to bring it in line with those practices.

I will give a concrete example having to do with the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which we were talking about earlier. In Canada, 37 rivers are considered to be heritage rivers. Of these 37 rivers, 27 will no longer be protected.

Now, 27 of Canada's 37 designated heritage rivers will no longer be protected. They include the Bloodvein River, in Manitoba and Ontario; the Cowichan River, British Columbia; the Clearwater River, Saskatchewan and Alberta; the Main River, Newfoundland and Labrador; the Margaree River, in Nova Scotia; the South Nahanni River, Northwest Territories; the Tatshenshini River, Yukon; the Mattawa River, Ontario; and the Upper Restigouche River, New Brunswick.

Mr. Speaker, I actually enjoy responding to the peanut gallery when they heckle. The question was, “Is it navigable?” Duh, yes. It is a definition in the law. No amount of rebranding will take away from the fact that the Navigable Waters Protection Act was meant to ensure sustainable development for future generations.

I mentioned the decision of Judge Lamer in the Oldman River case in my opening remarks. Let me read one section:

The Minister of Transport, in his capacity of decision maker under the Navigable Waters Protection Act must thus consider the environmental impact of the dam on such areas of federal jurisdiction as navigable waters, fisheries, Indians and Indian lands.

After that, the Conservatives stood up and said that law had nothing to do with the environment. Shame. It is Orwellian. The Conservatives made their website disappear after a question was asked by my colleague from Halifax yesterday. There were 29 references to the environment, and the Conservatives made them disappear. They want to make the environment disappear.

We are going to stand up and protect the environment, for now and for future generations. We are going to continue to fight the Conservatives' omnibus budget bills.

There are two different aspects that are being discussed today. When we look at the contents of what they are proposing, we get the results we are looking at here. We are hurting people. We are taking away programs. We are taking away protections that have been given in Canada for generations.

Before we even look at those, there is an aspect that all Canadians have to consider in what we are going through today, which is the continuation of what the Conservatives started in the spring. This type of omnibus budget bill is affecting dozens and dozens of different laws. We have fallen into the American trap of avoiding our parliamentary debate. Our system is different from the American budget system, where they tack on and tack on.

We remember the Prime Minister, and it was not something we have said, admitting that he never watches Canadian television and he never watches the Canadian news. He gets all his news from the Fox network. I guess it is not surprising that he thinks the American system applies here and he has simply given instructions to his House leader and his other officers to start following the American system of using a budget bill as sort of a catch-all, where they can throw in all the stuff they want to change. That is what we have here, again.

That is an undermining of our parliamentary democracy. Those are our institutions. The Conservatives are not only taking away things like medicare, free universal public medical care, and putting it in danger, the cuts I referred to earlier, the $36 billion that they announced without discussion or debate will lead inexorably to a two-tier system. That is just a fancy way of saying that poor people are going to have trouble seeing a doctor and rich people will have access because they will be able to pay for it.

That is not the Canadian system. That is not the Canadian way. We will stand up and fight that.

Yes, at every step, we will stand up because for the first time in a very long time we are beginning to have hope. In the next campaign, there will be two opposing visions for our country. There is the Conservative vision, which slashes the social safety net and takes out $10 billion every year. That is the figure they tried to hide. The cat was out of the bag yesterday.

I heard the member for Saint Boniface say earlier that they held lengthy budget briefings. Let us talk about those briefings. I was the finance critic for the official opposition for five budgets before I became the leader of the official opposition. Never before had I seen what I saw last spring. We often see the same people from year to year. They are usually in their offices. There is very little reason for them to be here, except for the few times they attend parliamentary committee hearings.

Officials are there to provide us with information. When I saw not only the budget cuts, but also the two-year increase in the retirement age, I went to see them to ask for a single figure that could be readily obtained. I asked them what adding two years of work would mean and how much money the government would be taking out of seniors' pockets.

This is what they told me, and I quote:

“I can't give you that information.”

I know a half-truth when I hear it. So I answered:

Are you telling me you can't give me that information because you don't have it, or are you telling me you have that information but you can't give it to me?

And the response, which was worthy of George Orwell, was:

“I can't give you that information.”

That is the Conservatives.

Yesterday the Auditor General confirmed the overall number. The Minister of Finance was asked that question at a press conference right in front of the House of Commons a few months ago. On our side, we had estimated that it was somewhere between $10 billion and $12 billion. We were not far off. They estimated it at $10 billion. The minister refused to give the number. He replied with his usual smile, as though he were saying “I do not give a damn”, that he had heard approximate numbers. Imagine that, a Minister of Finance who says such things. I can say one thing to my colleagues and to any seniors watching us at home: they can be sure that the two-year increase in the retirement age will be cancelled by an NDP government; we will put the retirement age back to 65.

We will stand up, unlike the members opposite who, day after day, have to parrot the lines written by the Prime Minister's Office. They sometimes have one minute a day in their poor little parliamentary lives to finally talk about their ridings and about real issues, and what do they do? They act like parrots. They are puppets, marionettes. They stand up and say exactly what the Prime Minister's Office tells them to say.

We can be reasonable. We can stand up and keep the real objectives in mind. We tell Canadians that when it comes to pensions, the integrity of our Parliament and our free, public health care system, we are proud to stand up for them. We will stand up for the environment, because we in the NDP know that we deserve better than what the Conservatives have been offering us for the past six years.

Since the Conservatives came to power, they have found many opportunities to invent titles for bills that say exactly the opposite of the bill's contents. Last week, I had the opportunity to say that if, by chance, they actually used the most recent incarnation of the mammoth budget bill to do what they promised to do in the election campaign, which was create jobs, we would vote in favour of the bill.

In the comments I made yesterday, I clearly explained that we could have a good discussion about some of the elements in this bill if we could split it. It could be done by splitting the bill and having different committees study it.

We believe that some things can and must be done. I gave an example earlier when I spoke about tax credits for creating jobs. That is how we could go about it.

We will not let the Conservatives fool us. We have become too accustomed to their empty promises. We are telling them outright that if they split the bill and divide it into coherent parts that can be easily studied, they will find that our party is willing to co-operate.

We shall see what they end up doing. We will test the Conservatives' ability to be true to their word. In the case of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, we saw that they said one thing and what was in the documents was altogether different.

Here are some of the elements that could be split off from the bill.

Here are some of the elements of Bill C-45 that could be split off from the bill and studied separately and properly in a parliamentary committee. It has already been shown it is possible because we did it last week.

By the way, I open a little parenthesis to say that there are 450,000 public servants in Canada who are very happy that the NDP actually read what the Liberals were putting in, because such is the Liberal incompetence that they were about to give one-two-three agreement to the enactment of a law that would have taken MPs' and senators' pensions and dealt with them on the same footing as the pensions of 450,000 civil servants.

The NDP stood up, demanded a change, and was able to get it done right.

It was so pathetic to see the House leader for the Liberals standing in the hallway, stuttering away, saying, “It was a spelling mistake. It was a typographical error.” That is one of his classics. Four hundred and fifty-thousand people are a typographical error for the Liberals.

Here are some of the elements that could be split off from the bill.

The gutting of the Canada Environmental Assessment Act should be before the environment committee. The gutting of the Navigable Waters Protection Act should be before the environment and transportation committee. The elimination of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission should, of course, go to the health committee. Cutting the SR and ED tax credits should be before the industry committee. Changes to the Fisheries Act should go to fisheries and oceans committee. Changes to the Indian Act should go to aboriginal affairs and northern development committee. Changes to the new Bridge to Strengthen Trade Act should go before the transportation committee. Eliminating the grain act tribunal should go before the agriculture committee, and pension reforms should go before the human resources, skills and social development committee.

Therefore, I would like to seek unanimous consent, and I am sure it is going to be given, to move the following motion.

That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, that Bill C-45, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures be amended by removing the following clauses:

(a) clauses 9, 27, 28 and 62 to 64 related to the scientific research and experimental development tax credit;

(b) clauses 173 to 178 related to the Fisheries Act;

(c) clauses 179 to 184 related to the proposed bridge to strengthen trade act;

(d) clauses 206 to 209 related to the Indian Act;

(e) clauses 210 to 218 related to the Judges Act;

(f) clauses 264 to 268 related to the Customs Act;

(g) clauses 269 to 298 related to the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act;

(i) clauses 316 to 350 related to the Navigable Waters Protection Act;

(j) clauses 351 to 410 related to the Canada Grains Act;

(k) clauses 425 to 432 related to the Canada Environmental Assessment Act; and

(l) clauses 464 to 514 related to pension reforms

That the clauses mentioned in section (a) of this motion do compose Bill C-47; that Bill C-47 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

That the clauses mentioned in section (b) of this motion do compose Bill C-48; that Bill C-48 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

That the clauses mentioned in section (c) of this motion do compose Bill C-49; that Bill C-49 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

That the clauses mentioned in section (d) of this motion do compose Bill C-50; that Bill C-50 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

That the clauses mentioned in section (e) of this motion do compose Bill C-51; that Bill C-51 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

That the clauses mentioned in section (f) of this motion do compose Bill C-52; that Bill C-52 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. Could I interrupt the hon. Leader of the Opposition and ask that he slow down. The translators are having a difficult time. He will have the opportunity to complete reading his motion. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

That the clauses mentioned in section (g) of this motion do compose Bill C-53; that Bill C-53 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Health;

That the clauses mentioned in section (h) of this motion do compose Bill C-54; that Bill C-54 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration;

That the clauses mentioned in section (i) and (k) of this motion do compose Bill C-55; that Bill C-55 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development;

That the clauses mentioned in section (j) of this motion do compose Bill C-56; that Bill C-56 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food; and

That the clauses mentioned in section (l) of this motion do compose Bill C-57; that Bill C-57 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities;

That Bill C-45 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order; that Bill C-45 be reprinted as amended; and that the law clerk and parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.

Mr. Speaker, we are proposing this motion to better study individually in the appropriate parliamentary committees this omnibus budget bill, which touches on dozens of different pieces of legislation. We find this motion to be in the interests of this parliamentary institution that has been so hard pressed by a Conservative majority that thinks it can run roughshod over the rights of Parliament.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

He does not.

The time for government orders has expired. As such, the member will have a period for questions and comments when this matter returns to the House.,

It being 5:32 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's order paper.

Bill C-45--Notice of time allocation motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Our economic action plan is working and it has helped support the creation of over 830,000 net new jobs since the downturn, but there is more to do. To continue this work we need to implement our plan for the passage of Bill C-45, the jobs and growth act.

I would like to advise that an agreement has not been reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-45, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures. Thus, under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at this stage. It is my intention to propose four further days for the second reading debate of Bill C-45.

Bill C-45—Time Allocation Motion

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

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, not more than four further sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the bill; and that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the fourth day allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period.

I would ask hon. members to try to keep their questions or comments to about a minute and the response to a similar length of time.

As we have been doing for some time now, we will treat this like question period with more questions being given to the opposition parties, but the government will have some opportunities throughout the rotation.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for that direction. I hope it is not too much like question period in the sense that when we ask a question of the government, we might get an actual answer. Hope springs eternal.

I am just going to quote my hon. friend across the way, the government House leader, who just last week said, “I look forward to a vigorous policy debate on the economy and not on procedural games”. Yet the first thing the government chooses to do today is to play procedural games.

There are two questions being put before the House. One is time allocation, closure, shutting down debate on this omnibus budget bill and the second is something the Conservatives used to decry when the Liberals did it. They are ramming together a whole bunch of issues, which have nothing to do with the budget at all. The Navigable Waters Protection Act has been getting some obvious attention. An environmental protection act that was used to protect Canada's environment from things like pipeline leaks is now rammed into a budget bill.

If my hon. friend across the way said he was looking forward to a debate and not procedural games, then why is it that the first thing the government has chosen to do is to use procedural games to shut down debate on such a massive 450-page omnibus budget bill, which the government admits contains so many things that were not in the budget. In fact, the Minister of Transport had to delete web pages in the middle of the night that referred to the Navigable Waters Protection Act as an act that actually protects the environment. That was not in the budget despite what the international affairs minister says. He says, “Look on page 282. There it is in black and white”, but we look and it is not there.

I am wondering where those principles and scruples that the Conservatives used to have about some basic democratic values went. Those fundamentals said that the House of Commons should hold the government to account, that the budget is the major document the government moves every year and that it is the duty and responsibility of all MPs, not just those in opposition but in government, to hold the government to account. The first thing the Conservatives do is play a procedural game by shutting down debate in this place, prematurely, on such an important document as the budget.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Minister of State (Finance)]

Mr. Speaker, I do hope that the next 30 minutes will not be filled with just questions about process. There is a lot more happening here fundamentally about democracy. We recognize that we are in extenuating circumstances. We are part of a global recovery and we all realize that. The budget that was tabled on March 29 is a continuation of our plan for jobs and growth, our plan for getting back to balance in the medium term. We are putting forward a comprehensive budget implementation act and we recognize that it needs to be discussed.

That is why we need to move it past this phase where the opposition tends to just talk about process. All we are asking for is to send the bill to committee expeditiously. We are going to spread it across 11 committees and that motion will be moved as soon as it is appropriate in a committee process. We want to get the bill to committee so that people can have some input into this, witnesses can be called on all different facets of this comprehensive piece of legislation and we can hear them out and move forward with what is necessary.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring up an example of a matter that deserves more consideration in this chamber before it goes to committee. That is the matter of the reduction of certain tax credits related to scientific research and experimental development. This is hundreds of millions of dollars in tax credits that is going away. If I were in a hurry I would probably do something that people on the other side of the floor would do, which would be to call this a tax increase since it is the elimination of a tax credit. I am sure the government would not want me to do that. This is a good example of something that has a rather complicated effect on businesses and something that affects hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes that would now be paid by businesses in Canada every year.

As a result of its size and because of its complexity and because of its importance to the economic future of this country, I believe that this legislation is an example of something that deserves more discussion in this chamber before it goes to committee.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point I was trying to make. Too often in here we hear discussions about process. The hon. member is correct. This is a complex improvement to the scientific research and experimental development tax credit. It is very important that we get this to committee, so we can actually talk about it and have witnesses come forward who actually understand this. I would argue that probably most members of Parliament could not explain how the SR&ED program actually works. It is a well-functioning program.

In my private life previous to politics, I was involved in SR&ED tax credits. They are very effective. They work well for innovators in the country. However, we heard from the Jenkins panel that we could do it better. That is what we are trying to do. It is a reflection of what Tom Jenkins had suggested to us as improvements. Let us get it to committee and talk about it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State said that we must not boil things down to just process.

The government has just moved a time allocation motion, another means of shutting down parliamentary debate. The motion is about process, and that is nothing new for this government. Closure, prorogation and omnibus bills are all types of processes that the government uses to weaken the democratic framework in which we are supposed to work.

The Minister of State told us again that all they want to do is send the bill to committee as quickly as possible in order to study it. Canada is a parliamentary democracy with a clear parliamentary process: we have automatic first reading of a bill, and then second reading of the bill that members are supposed to do here in the House of Commons, before it can be studied in more detail by the Standing Committee on Finance and other committees, which the government is going to let happen, for once.

We currently have a problem. As was the case in June with Bill C-38, we will have an expedited debate and, even though the bill is going to be studied by various committees, we will not have the opportunity to give due consideration to the different elements of this omnibus bill that could be split off and passed independently.

The Minister of State was boasting about Bill C-38 and said that more than 150 witnesses had appeared before the committee, which sat for more than 75 hours. I would like to remind members that Bill C-38 covered 70 laws that were amended, added or rescinded. That comes down to two witnesses per law, whereas we generally hear from 15 to 20, and about one hour per law being amended.

Therefore, I would like to know why the government is using closure, omnibus bills and prorogation to water down the parliamentary work we were elected to do, as representatives of our constituents here in the House.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, all members, who are members of the committees where the budget implementation bill will be sent, will have ample opportunity to speak to the experts who can bring topics to each one of these committees. That is exactly what we want to see.

As I suggested earlier, once again we have a process question, when we could actually be spending time talking about the substance of the bill. That is not good use of the House's time. We should actually be talking about the good things that are in the bill. We should be talking about the continuation of this plan, a plan that has actually seen us grow jobs in the country, more than 820,000 net new jobs since the end of the recession. That is a good number.

Obviously the plan is heading in the right direction. This is just a continuation of that plan. Let us move forward, get it to committee and discuss it at length.

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

Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting to hear the Minister of State say that members of Parliament are not necessarily experts and that we must hear from experts in committee.

What does he think about the fact that we speak on behalf of our constituents? We are experts on conveying the wishes of the people we represent. Our constituents deserve to have us speak on their behalf here in the House.

When the budget was tabled, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster read numerous emails, tweets and Facebook messages, among other things. That is how he shared the opinions of the public. I do not want to take anything away from the experts who testify in committee, but that is just one part of the parliamentary process. As my colleague pointed out, the most important part of this process is when we have the opportunity to do what we are doing now: rise in the House to represent the wishes of the people who elected us. I had the opportunity to speak to Bill C-38, and I was able to share what my constituents thought. No, these people are not experts, but we are accountable to them and we are here to represent them.

The Minister of State is dismissing the parliamentary process, when it is very important here. What is the purpose of Parliament if there is no parliamentary process? Is it a dictatorship? This process is the very essence of democracy, legislation and fundamental rights in a society. If the Minister of State thinks that this process is not important, I suggest that he find another profession, because I do not think he is in the right field.

When will the members opposite respect the parliamentary process? When will they recognize that we are here to speak on behalf of other experts—the people we represent?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the point about the discussions here. They are valid discussions, but each member of the House is a de facto member, an alternate member, of all these committees where this piece of legislation would go. Therefore, they would have ample opportunity for some in-depth discussion with those witnesses who wish to come and speak to the pros and cons of all these suggestions and what is in this legislation. To take advantage of the time we have here, I would encourage the members to ask questions about what the benefits are with respect to this legislation we are putting forward.

The hiring tax credit is one example about which I was hoping someone would ask me. We put it in last year's budget for small businesses, and it is very effective. More than half a million businesses were able to take advantage of it. If we can get the bill through, we are projecting that 536,000 more businesses will be able to take advantage of it, and perhaps the same businesses. That is a $200 million benefit to small businesses in this country. I bet we will have some witnesses come forward to say that is good.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the government should be ashamed of itself, because once again it moved time allocation on a very important piece of legislation, which ultimately would have a profound impact and which encompasses many changes with respect to other pieces of legislation that should have been introduced in a separate fashion.

This is part two of a previous government budget bill. Canadians do want to ensure that there is legitimate debate, but unfortunately the government has chosen to deny that.

I will provide a classic example. At a time when we are losing services for immigrants and the unemployed, and so many thousands of jobs are being lost, in the same year we have the government increasing the size of the House of Commons. It will be creating 30 new seats for members of Parliament at a time when we are having serious cutbacks in terms of services for real Canadians. That is all about bad priorities.

Unfortunately, even the New Democrats are supporting increasing the number of members of Parliament. That is why it will be up to the Liberal Party to ensure that the government recognizes what is important and what the priorities are when it comes to immigration services, unemployment services and so forth.

My question to the government is this. Why has it decided to once again bring in time allocation to try to expedite the bill and deny the opportunity for true accountability inside the House of Commons by bundling it and then rushing it through in an undemocratic fashion?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that was a bit of a wandering question, much of it not even part of the discussion of the budget implementation act—in fact most of it, I would suggest.

Talking about representation, this is our opportunity to represent our constituents. This is our opportunity for all members of Parliament to talk about what the benefits are and what more we can do to help our constituents. I talked previously about the $1,000 hiring credit for small businesses, which is very effective.

We are improving the registered disability savings plan in this budget implementation act. It is a very effective program and very helpful to families who have disabled members, whether they are children or adults. We have found some ways to enhance that. We have been communicating with the provinces. There have been some challenges to get the financial institutions the authorities they need to make sure the money stays with the family member. We have been working on that and we found some solutions. That is part of this. Let us talk about something like that.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of State for Finance for taking the time today to be part of this great discussion. I agree that we need to focus on what is really going to be important in this bill.

In my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, it is basically rural and small businesses. Small businesses employ around 50% of the people in Canada. What are most of the businesses in Canada, in the high 90%? They are small businesses. In budget 2011, we brought in the hiring credit for small businesses. It is deemed to have been successful and in this bill there is an extension of that hiring credit for small business.

I know you have talked about it, Mr. Minister, and I am wondering if you could again talk about the significance of it in this country, not only in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex but for small businesses that are, quite honestly, the engine of this country.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I would remind all members to address their questions to the Chair.

The hon. minister of state.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague and friend for raising a very important issue. I know he works hard with the small businesses in his riding. Most of us have heard from small businesses that this has actually helped them. This will provide, as I said before, an opportunity for some 536,000 businesses across this country to hire new Canadians to continue with the job growth, a job growth that I would remind all hon. members is the strongest job recovery growth in the G7. We are expecting to be among the strongest growth in the economy, but this is the strongest job recovery in the entire G7. We have recovered all of the jobs lost and the economic loss as well. It was through policies such as this.

This is an innovative policy that was put forward on a temporary basis. We cannot continue it until it is legislated. Let us get it to committee, approve it, legislate it and provide businesses the opportunity to hire more Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, many of us on this side are commenting about the unfortunate way these omnibus budget bills are going forward, in a hypocritical manner.

In the last election, I remember the newly re-elected Prime Minister making a promise to Canadians in the media. He did not use the words “false majority”, but given that he got only 39% of the popular vote, therefore he has a false majority. He promised to represent not only that 39% but all Canadians, the two-thirds who did not vote for him as well. Yet today we have evidence that is not happening. We are having inadequate debate because Conservatives feel they have a majority and can rush through whatever they want.

I would like the hon. member to explain why the Conservatives, the Prime Minister and he are not adequately representing all Canadians on these important issues.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, members will not be surprised to hear me disagree with that comment. I would suggest that we actually are representing all Canadians. We are representing our constituents, as the opposition members will have adequate time to do.

Rather than standing and asking process questions, we should be talking about what is actually in this. There are a number of policies that we are putting forward, extensions of some of the good work that has helped create jobs.

We will have ample opportunity, as we move this to the health committee, the transport, infrastructure and communities committee, the aboriginal affairs and northern development committee, the agriculture and agri-food committee, the environment and sustainable development committee, the fisheries and oceans committee, the justice and human rights committee, the public safety and national security committee, the human resources, skills and social development and status of persons with disabilities committee, which is where the RDSP will go, the citizenship and immigration committee, and let us not forget the finance committee which will be reviewing the tax improvements that are in this.

There will be ample opportunity to discuss all of these policies. We can bring witnesses in to talk about the benefits that they will see from this.

We encourage hon. members to get on with it. If they want to discuss more about what is in the budget legislation right now, I am happy to do that. Let us move forward and get it to committee where we can discuss it at length.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must say, I am genuinely outraged, because we have seen this sort of thing before. The Conservatives have become experts in time allocation motions.

I think this does a real disservice to our democratic process, because when the government refuses to allow us as members, as parliamentarians, to debate a bill as important as Bill C-45, it is an affront once again to our democracy. This is also an affront to Canadians, because muzzling us, the members of the House, means muzzling all Canadians.

I want to say that we can still discuss and debate the contents of the bill, both here in the House and in committees. The work of parliamentarians is done in both places. It is important to remember that.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not, in any way, trying to diminish the great work that is done within this House of Commons.

We do not all get back to our ridings every weekend but we try to engage our constituents and to listen to what they are saying. We get back on a break week and we talk to them then. However, there is no better way to engage citizens than through the committee process. Those witnesses come to the committee with a specific purpose to speak to a specific piece of this legislation. They will bring their thoughts and some of those are very learned thoughts. We need to hear that from those individuals who would benefit from many of the policy changes and improvements that we are putting in this budget implementation bill. Those are the people we need to hear from and that is important.

We can debate it here, and it is helpful, but there is a tremendous benefit to moving this to all of the committees that I referred to earlier. That is very important to provide the opportunity for each one of the members of Parliament to sit on those committees and to ask the questions of the witnesses who will appear.

We need to hear from them, and then move this as quickly as we can. A number of the items that are in here are actually time sensitive. We need to get these moving. For example, we need to get the tax credits moving so we can actually implement them.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. Minister of State for Finance . I preface it by requesting him to please not criticize members of the opposition when our response to a motion on process and procedure is to respond to a motion on process and procedure. I always try to ensure my comments are relevant to the matters at hand and I find it frustrating when others do not.

As a matter of process, the motion before us is to expedite a bill, as others have noted, of over 400 pages that would effect changes to many different of laws. Many of them have nothing to do, with all due respect, to a budget that was tabled in March 2012. They have nothing to do with jobs, growth and the economy. I point to changes, for instance, that would demand that visitors to Canada from foreign nations fill out forms in advance. These are new barriers to tourism. In that sense, I suppose it is related to jobs because it would cost jobs.

I look at the Navigable Waters Protection Act and realize that we could get quite far at debate in second reading in identifying some of the issues before this goes to committee. For instance, we have been told not to worry, that although federal rights of navigation have disappeared from most of Canada's waterways, they are protected in common law. How on earth will the Canadian who finds that navigation has been impaired find the money to hire the lawyers to go to court to redress damage already done by seeking remedies in common law? This is an excuse and not an answer.

I would ask my hon. friend to allow full debate. It is the government of the day, the Privy Council's choice, to bring forward an enormous bill. It requires full debate.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more, which is why we are trying to give it full debate and, I would suggest, more debate than any other budget bill has actually had. We are trying to move it to all of these different committees. All I am encouraging hon. members to do is to get it to those committees so we can actually talk about it.

The hon. member talked about navigable waters. I will explain exactly what the amendments to the act would do. They would clearly define the major waterways upon which regulatory approval is required prior to the placement or construction of a work and rely on the common law to protect navigation in long listed waters. We all have examples, especially those of us in rural Canada, of where this change is needed. For example, I had a feedlot in my riding where, because a culvert was washed out in a flood, e 10,000 cattle could have perished because we could not get feed to them. It was an intermittent stream. We simply wanted to put the culvert back in place. It took months to get that done. There were no fish in that because it was an intermittent stream. We are trying to bring some common sense to what is navigable water and what is not.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have two very succinct points for my friend across the way.

First, this is the natural stage of a bill which the government has chosen today procedurally to shut down debate. The Conservatives are limiting the amount of time that MPs will have to interact and hold the government to account. I will look for a very specific commitment from my friend because he has made much of these committees that will now have a chance to look at the bill but not actually affect the bill, which is a strange way to divide the bill for further studies. MPs will be there, they can look at it, they can hear from witnesses but they cannot make any amendments for changes.

The government says that it wants full debate and study at these committees. Will the member's government commit to not moving time allocation and closure, which it has done for the first stage, at the second stage and third stage which is when it comes back to the House? Will he commit to at least that today for Canadians, that there will be no time allocation at committee, that we can hear from those witnesses, take the testimony, improve the mistakes and make this bill something that will actually hold up in court, in law and in practice?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, committees are masters of their own destiny so we will leave those decisions up to the committees. However, we need to assume that we will be able to bring witnesses on both sides of the debate. That is what the committee process is all about and we will leave it up to the committees to decide.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

That completes the 30 minutes allocated for that session.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #485

Jobs and Growth Act, 2012

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I declare the motion carried.

The hon. parliamentary secretary on a point of order.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is not actually a point of order. I was hoping that we were going to the orders of the day so that I could proceed with asking a question of the Leader of the Opposition, who spent some 80 or 90 minutes speaking in debate yesterday and not even giving the Liberals an opportunity to speak.

It appears that the Leader of the Opposition is in fact afraid to answer questions here in the House with regard to the misleading comments he has made. Therefore, I offer an opportunity, because I am sure he is in the lobby, for him to come back and take questions.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

That, rather obviously, is not a point of order.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Wascana.

The House resumed from October 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in this debate on Bill C-45, the concerns of the Liberal opposition fall into two categories—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

We will just take a minute to let the chamber clear. For those not remaining to hear the debate, please move outside the chamber.

The hon. member for Wascana.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in the debate on Bill C-45, the concerns of the Liberal opposition fall into two categories.

First, from a procedural point of view, the government is again trying to jam Parliament, making sensible debate very difficult and rendering any votes on the bill both muddled and meaningless, all because Bill C-45 is another offensive omnibus bill, one that exceeds every legitimate precedent and that clearly constitutes an abuse of power.

Second, when economic growth is slowing to a crawl; when Canadian productivity is worse than we thought; when household debts are reaching dangerous proportions; and when worldwide financial risks are “alarmingly high”, to use the words of the IMF, Bill C-45 is stunningly complacent. There is nothing significant to promote growth, jobs, innovation and productivity, or to achieve genuine sustainable development in one of the world's most important resource economies, or to foster a dynamic and successful middle class, or to combat growing inequality between different sectors, regions and demographic groups.

On the procedural point, so-called omnibus bills obviously bundle several different measures together. Within reasonable limits, such legislation can be managed through Parliament if the bill is coherent, meaning that all the different topics are interrelated and interdependent and if the overall volume of the bill is not overwhelming. That was the case before the government came to power in 2006.

When omnibus bills were previously used to implement key provisions of federal budgets, they averaged fewer than 75 pages in length and typically amended a handful of laws directly related to budgetary policy. In other words, they were coherent and not overwhelming.

However, under this regime the practice has changed. Omnibus bills since 2006 have averaged well over 300 pages, more than four times the previous norm. This latest one introduced last week had 556 sections, filled 443 pages and touched on 30 or more disconnected topics, everything from navigable waters to grain inspection, from disability plans to hazardous materials.

It is a complete dog's breakfast, and deliberately so. It is calculated to be so humongous and so convoluted, all in a single lump, that it cannot be intelligently examined and digested by a conscientious Parliament.

Worse still, routine matters and positive measures are interwoven willy-nilly with destructive and contentious issues so that at the end of the day there can be no clear vote on anything, and thus the basic reason for this House to exist, to vote and to decide, is subverted.

Clearly Bill C-45 and its immediate predecessor, Bill C-38, are an abuse of power, and there is no greater authority for that indictment than the Prime Minister himself. When he served in opposition, he complained bitterly about a rather tiny omnibus bill back in 1994 that dealt with just five interconnected topics and ran a grand total of 21 pages.

In high dudgeon at the time, the Prime Minister said that the modest bill was:

—so diverse that a single vote on the content would put members in conflict with their own principles.

He continued:

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

He asked government members in particular to worry about the implications of omnibus bills for “democracy and the functionality of...Parliament”. That was the Prime Minister in 1994 complaining about a bill of a mere 21 pages.

By contrast, what we have before us today in Bill C-45 is massive, with more than 400 pages and more than 500 sections covering more than 30 different topics, amending more than 60 other pieces of legislation, some of which were never mentioned in the budget itself.

The Prime Minister must be totally twisted out of shape by this perversion of parliamentary democracy. It is either that or, now in power, his previous principles have become expendable. Canadians fear the latter is the case.

It is not just manipulative omnibus bills that break the rules of decent behaviour. It is also ministerial binges on $16 orange juice and lavish limousines and ornamental gazebos in Muskoka, all at the taxpayers' expense, and never a word of complaint from the Prime Minister. It is hundreds of millions of dollars wasted on the most self-serving tax-paid advertising, external crony consultants, a bloated cabinet and 30 extra totally unnecessary MPs. It is routinely invoking closure to stifle debate. It is forcing parliamentary committees to do the public's business in secret behind closed doors. It is ministers' offices interfering with the public's access to information. It is systematic personal attacks to discredit and intimidate charities, NGOs, public servants and parliamentary watchdogs from the budget officer to the Auditor General, from the information commissioner to Elections Canada. The government will try to shut up anyone who has the temerity to speak truth to power. Ultimately, all of this leads to bad governance, like the multi-billion dollar F-35 stealth fighter boondoggle, which both the Auditor General and the Parliamentary Budget Officer have depicted as dishonest and incompetent.

Expendable principles also lead to election financing fraud, for which the party opposite has been charged and convicted. It also leads to deceitful robocalls and tampering with people's right to vote. Abusive omnibus bills are part of that same matrix of wrongdoing with impunity.

How can this be fixed? The government accepted a Liberal idea last Thursday and Friday to carve out MP pension reforms, which were previously in Bill C-45, so they could be approved separately and immediately. That was a decent start. It proved that these bills are severable. Yesterday, the government accepted another Liberal suggestion to subdivide Bill C-45 for committee study. Instead of being sent as a single lump to the finance committee, the various subject matters in Bill C-45 will each be examined in detail by the House standing committee that has the appropriate expertise.

That is a very good second step. However, voting is the key. After all the debating is done, the vote will still remain convoluted because Bill C-45 will not be voted upon in sections or by topics but rather all together, at once, as one lump sum. That makes any such omnibus vote quite meaningless.

This too can be fixed. We call upon the government to structure the final vote on a topic-by-topic basis. It should not muddle scientific tax credits with bridges to Detroit, not confuse the IMF with the EI financing board, but should call separate and distinct votes on each of these topics and let the result be clear and honest.

With distinct and honest voting, and subject to the detailed review that will take place in the appropriate committees, there are certainly some measures in Bill C-45 that Liberals could support—for example, the IMF reforms, the CMHC adjustments, the concept of monetary penalties for violations of the internal trade agreement and, no doubt, others.

On some topics we would like to offer the government better alternatives. One example is the employment insurance hiring credit for small business. This measure is necessary only because the Conservatives are increasing the payroll tax burden on small businesses, indeed on all employers, each and every year. Last year and the year before and next year and the year after and every year into the foreseeable future, the government is increasing job-killing EI payroll taxes by some $600 million every year. Then it brags about a tax credit that gives back about $200 million. It takes away $600 million and gives back $200 million. As a consequence, employers are generally worse off. Those employers are paying more new Conservative taxes on jobs than they are getting back in any of the credits.

Business would have a greater incentive to generate new jobs if the government would just stop its annual payroll tax increases. When Liberals faced the challenge of a tough economy in the 1990s, we first froze EI payroll taxes and then we cut them, not once, not twice, but 12 consecutive times. We brought them down by more than 40%, and 3.5 million net new jobs were created. There is no room here to brag about the hiring credit. It is a temporary band-aid over the damage being done by higher and higher Conservative EI payroll taxes year after year.

Another area where Liberals would suggest a better idea has to do with the registered disability savings plans. The changes outlined in Bill C-45 are fine as far as they go. They offer some technical improvements in the plans, but they do not go far enough. Still left out, still discriminated against, are those unfortunate Canadians who are diagnosed with long-term debilitating conditions, like multiple sclerosis, for example. Given the capricious nature of diseases like MS, the sufferers may be fine today, with no signs of disability yet emerged, but they know that their future prognoses are quite likely to be problematic. What they would like to do now, while they still are able to earn a living, is to set up a registered disability savings plan and start building some financial security for their more difficult days down the road. But the government says no. To have an RDSP, they must be permanently disabled right now. They cannot make provision for the future. They have to wait until their disability overtakes them. Such rigidity in the rules is shortsighted, mean-spirited and just plain foolish. It can and it should be fixed in Bill C-45.

In the fight for greater equality of opportunity, other things should be done too. Personal tax credits for children's arts and sports, for volunteer firefighters and for family home caregivers should be made equally available to all of those who qualify, not just the more wealthy. As strange as it sounds, the government's tax credit structure is designed in such a way that those below a certain income level do not quality. It is perverse. It punishes the poor. Why is a child from a wealthy family more deserving than a child from a low-income family? Why are more wealthy firefighters or caregivers more deserving than low-income firefighters or caregivers? Of the 25 million people who file tax returns in Canada each year, more than one-third, some nine million families, have incomes so low that they are not eligible for these tax credits. It is unfair, it is wrong and it should be fixed.

Therefore, the government should stop increasing the EI payroll taxes and fix the flaws in registered disability savings plans and family-based tax credits. These things would actually promote economic growth and reduce the inequality among Canadians, but sadly, they are not in Bill C-45. Also, the government should not mangle the scientific research and experimental development tax credit by eliminating capital expenditures from the formula, because that is explicitly discriminatory against some sectors and some regions of the country that need this incentive.

We also want the government to get serious about the situation of young Canadians. Most of those young Canadians have seen very little improvement in their prospects since the depth of the recession four years ago. Unemployment among those under the age of 25 keeps hovering close to recession-like levels of 15%. Some 250,000 fewer young Canadians are employed today than before the recession began. Worse still, 165,000 young Canadians have just given up and dropped out of the job market. From preschool to grad studies, continuous, high-calibre learning is one of the keys to a strong, productive Canadian economy in a precarious world. While fully respecting provincial jurisdictions, the Government of Canada needs to be more than just an idle spectator when it comes to this crucial determinant of Canada's overall economic success and Canadians' individual wellbeing.

We will thrive, or not, in a tough global environment on the quality of our brain power. Therefore, it is good public policy for the federal government to invest in early learning and childcare, to break down financial barriers to post-secondary studies and skills, to ease the burden of student debt and shift toward more grants than loans, to bolster more curiosity-based pure research, to foster innovation and to make Canada the most connected and digital country in the world.

Squarely within federal jurisdiction for aboriginal education, the federal government must end the cap that limits first nations' access to post-secondary learning. In the kindergarten to grade 12 system, the feds need to fill that disgraceful gap between what they invest to educate aboriginal children and the much higher amounts the provinces invest for non-aboriginal children. That discrepancy has to be fixed.

Sadly, none of these courageous measures are to be found in Bill C-45, nor does the bill address the urgent need for more affordable housing, especially for seniors, students, the disabled and others with special needs. It does not take the creative step of transferring the entire federal gas tax to local municipal governments to help underpin community infrastructure. It does not advance the principle of a more extensive CPP, while it perversely maintains the government's odious decision to cut the future pensions of the poorest and most vulnerable of senior citizens. Those pensions will be cut gradually in the future at a saving of something approaching 0.3% of GDP. The burden of that minor saving for the Government of Canada will fall squarely on the backs of the lowest-income and most vulnerable older Canadians who have no alternatives.

Bill C-45 fails in the first obligation of every government, to keep Canadians safe. There is erosion in border services, prison security, our spy system, Maritime search and rescue, consumer product labelling, emergency preparedness, community crime prevention, cyber security and, most blatantly, food safety.

Why the government would choose to make these areas its primary focus for cutting has a lot of Canadians scratching their heads. They want to be able to count on their governments to ensure public health and safety, first and foremost. However, the government seems to have that priority nowhere significantly on its list.

On procedure and on substance, for what it does and what it fails to do, Bill C-45 in our judgment cannot be supported as it stands today.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Before we proceed to questions and comments, I wish to inform the House that, because of the proceedings on the closure motion, government orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member for Wascana that, last June, we discussed Bill C-38, which amended, created or eliminated approximately 70 laws with a single signature and a single vote.

Right now, this mammoth monster bill includes over 60 laws. Even if it were divided and the parts were examined separately by different committees, the fact remains that it amends, creates or eliminates about 60 laws. Once again, we will have to decide with a single vote.

The problem is that we do not have time in committee or in the House to carefully examine each of the laws that will be amended. The government gave us 70 hours to examine Bill C-38 in committee. We might be given the same number of hours to examine Bill C-45.

We heard from 150 witnesses. Given the number of laws that are being amended, created or eliminated, the time that has been allocated is truly laughable. Generally speaking, we hear from 15 to 20 witnesses and have 25 to 30 hours per law. However, we are not being given that much time here.

The government is telling us that all we talk about is parliamentary procedure, while it is talking about the economy. However, procedure is important because it is the foundation of democracy.

I would like to hear what the hon. member for Wascana has to say about the way in which this government is making a mockery of Parliament, parliamentary procedure and democracy by introducing massive bills such as this one.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. gentleman's concern. In the first half of my remarks today I went into considerable detail about why the procedure being followed here was mistaken. It does jamb Parliament. It limits the opportunity for debate and for serious consideration and, at the end of the day, it calls for all of these subject matters to be voted on together in a single vote. The government has indicated that it does not have to be that way.

Why does the government not fix this problem that it is causing for itself by insisting on the omnibus procedure? The government has already agreed that some things can come out of Bill C-45. That was demonstrated by the reforms to MPs' pensions. The bill can be severed. That has been demonstrated by what was done with the pension provisions.

The government has also indicated that the subject matters can be considered in different committees. It all does not have to go to finance committee. It can be divided up among eight, ten or twelve different committees of the House and the committee that has the expertise in a particular subject area can examine that portion of Bill C-45. That too is progress and it demonstrates that we do not have to have the omnibus procedure.

The government needs to go the one extra step and say that after the committees have done their consideration, the House can vote on these topics not all in one lump, but one by one, so the vote result can be clear and honest.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-45 is a huge bill. My colleague went through quite a number of areas where the federal government would be really eroding its ability to provide services to people. There are serious implications on Canadian society in receiving services from the government.

The member for Wascana may have touched on the changes to the Canadian Grain Commission, but he did not deal with them in detail. The Canadian Grain Commission has put Canada on the map in assuring that high quality grain gets to market. It gives some protection services to farmers and has enhanced our reputation abroad. Even changes to the Canada Grain Act are in this omnibus budget bill, which is clearly wrong.

Would the member care to comment on the impact that could have on the farm community and Canada as an export country shipping abroad?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in all of the intense debates over the last 25 years about the contentious issue of the Canadian Wheat Board, I often said that an even more crucial matter was the Canadian Grain Commission. The Grain Commission is that agency in our grain marketing system that guarantees quality to our customers and guarantees honesty in weights, measures and grades to farmers. The trend that is evident in this bill is a trend toward making the whole Grain Commission process voluntary, optional and entirely at the farmer's expense. We think that trend is wrong. Any agency or organization like the Grain Commission, after the better part of 100 years in service, can be upgraded, improved and modernized, but this is a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

If we couple the elimination of the grades, standards and the guarantees of proper quality that the Grain Commission provides with the loss of the Canadian Wheat Board, the government is in the process of putting prairie agriculture back to about 1910.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to some of the historic revisions that went on. When we talk about employment insurance, Canadians at home watching this remember when a Liberal government took billions and billions of dollars out of the employment insurance system in order to balance the books. The member talked about programs for post-secondary education, health care and others. It is this government that has put money into those programs. During economic tough times, this government was able to find extra money to put into health care and made changes to the employment insurance system. The Liberals are the ones who took billions of dollars out of health care and employment insurance and now they say that this government is mismanaging.

The member talked about the IMF. The IMF has praised Canada. Yes, it has concerns. The OECD and the rest of the world is looking at Canada as the right way to manage an economy, yet the member wants some kind of revision not only of the past but the present.

Why does he not acknowledge the fact that there are improvements needed in many respects? We need only to look at the employment insurance plan to see how it has benefited women who can now apply for employment insurance when they are pregnant or for people who own businesses. There have been improvements to employment insurance to cover people who did not have such coverage before because they were single employers and ran their own businesses.

A lot of good things have happened and why the member does not at least acknowledge that is beyond me.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the difficulties that were faced by the government in the 1990s were very severe. The IMF was quite literally knocking on the door saying that Canada was about to hit the wall. Therefore, some serious decisions had to be made at that time. The praise coming from the IMF today is largely based on the courageous decisions that were made in the 1990s, and the IMF has said that. There was a $40 billion deficit that had to be dealt with.

The former leader of the hon. member's party, Preston Manning, said that the cuts should be deeper. He argued for the cuts to go further. The transfers to provinces that had to be reduced temporarily back in that period of time were all fully restored by the year 2001 and reached an all-time record level by 2003.

On the employment insurance premiums, the consolidation of the fund with the books of the Government of Canada was a specific recommendation by the Auditor General of Canada. The Liberal government followed the auditor general's advice and, at the same time, cut EI premium rates every year for 12 consecutive years, resulting in a saving to employers and employees of 40%, the exact opposite of what the Conservative government—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton—Leduc.

I am certainly pleased to stand in the House today to speak to Bill C-45, which is our second budget implementation act. As members are aware, the budget was introduced last spring and, as is the typical practice of the House, there are usually two pieces of legislation that turn this aspirational and directional document into legislation. Today we are considering the second important implementation bill.

The opposition has taken a very simplistic view of this process. The opposition members are busy counting pages rather than reading them. They are focused on worrying about the number of statutes as opposed to looking at the current context and the unique challenges that we face as a country.

Canadians want their government to focus on results. They expect us to work hard to ensure that this happens. I want to provide a small example, using MP pensions. Since I was elected in 2008, I have heard regularly and frequently from constituents that they felt the current plan was unfair to the taxpayer.

As a government, we committed to make a change where parliamentarians would pay their fair share. We need to look at this in a little more depth. This represented one line in the budget, but it took 22 pages in the BIA to make the change. To be frank, I do not think Canadians care about how many pages it would take. What they care about is the outcome. They expect legislators to know how to make it happen.

I would like to note the comment of Speaker Parent when the issue of budget scope was debated in 1994. He said:

In conclusion, it is procedurally correct and common practice for a bill to amend, repeal or enact several statutes. There are numerous rulings in which Speakers have declined to intervene simply because a bill was complex and permitted omnibus legislation to proceed.

We are aware that an important plan is necessary. Our government knows we must make changes to ensure Canada's long-term future, a future focused on prosperity, jobs and growth, a future that will help further unleash the potential of Canadian businesses and entrepreneurs to innovate and thrive in a modern economy to the benefit of all Canadians for generations to come.

As has been said often in the House, Canada is the envy of the world. We were well-positioned to face the great recession and fared better than most countries. We have over 800,000 net new jobs, most of them in the private sector and most of them full-time.

Our plan is working but we must do more. That is why the economic action plan is so important. There are many challenges ahead that range from a continual fragile global economy to a significant demographic challenge with an aging workforce.

I would now like to give a few examples and focus in on what the BIA 2 will do. We are looking at responsible resource development. It absolutely is critical to ensure environmental protection, but at the same time have some balance.

When I was mayor of a small town, we took incredible pride in the protection of some of our important fish habitats, but we were also tried to put in a walking trail. We had a walking trail, with a tiny footbridge, that had to go over a creek that was wet very infrequently. It was considered a navigable water. The amount of bureaucracy and paperwork involved was stunning. A canoe never went in that water. There was never any navigation in that water. The process we had to go through with Transport Canada in order to put in a small footbridge that would support the recreation and well-being of the community was absolutely stunning.

This is where we need to create better balance in terms of what we are looking at, focusing important resources in areas that are going to be most important.

Another place I would like to look at within this BIA is the expanding opportunities for the aboriginal people to fully participate in the economy. I am really particularly proud of Tk'emlúps Indian Band which has shown real leadership in moving forward for a good economy for its people and using their land in ways that the band approves of but provides challenges.

The Auditor General has identified the designation and leasing processes to be the cause of unnecessary lengthy approval times for projects on reserve.

I have seen that up front, whether it be a number of the bands as they are trying to move forward wanting to do some very important things and the months of delay with the bureaucracy again getting in their way. The legislation has important amendments that would take away some of the government's patriarchal land ownership rulings and let the bands move forward in terms of some important economic opportunities.

We recognize that having a social safety net that supports Canadians must be there for future generations. We cannot leave a legacy of debt that will suffocate our children and we must return to a balanced budget in the medium term, again an important focus of what we are doing right now.

Expanding trade and opening new markets for Canadian business is critical. Our prosperity is ultimately linked to reaching beyond our borders for economic opportunities. I will look at the forestry industry in British Columbia where the new markets in China have seen us through a very difficult time and helped buffer the U.S. recession because our pulp mills and our forestry workers were able to keep working and have looked at a significant increase in terms of trading with China.

Our government also understands the importance of a fair and equitable tax system and that is why this bill includes a number of important measures to improve on certain tax credits and other issues. Overall, these measures would improve access to some very important tax programs. I will talk briefly about the RDSP,which has been very well received. We will simplify the process to open RDSPs for individuals who have reached the age of majority and lack contractual competence. We would reduce the repayment of the Canada disability savings grant and Canada disability savings bonds in certain cases. We are introducing changes to the minimum and maximum withdrawal rules. We are allowing a tax-free roll-over of registered education savings plan investment income into an RDSP. We are temporarily suspending the termination of an RDSP following cessation of eligibility. I could go on and on but essentially these are technical changes that would provide a vast improvement to the program. If it takes a lot of pages, I ask that the opposition members read the pages and support the legislation.

I will contrast our low tax plan focus on jobs and growth with that of the NDP. On page four of the NDP platform, there is a $21 billion carbon tax that would be used for a myriad of government social programs that range from housing to food. We need to be clear that this is a tax that would raise the cost of everything from gas to heating bills and it should be contrasted—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize to my friend from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo who truly is my friend. I recognize that speaking notes are prepared by people other than my hon. friend but we are talking about Bill C-45 and it does not include any mention of any NDP election platform, nor is this proper in debate.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands will know that members, in the course of their comments, can explore any number of ideas with which they can refer or relate to their comments in the course of their speech. I am sure the hon. parliamentary secretary will be well into summarizing toward the end of her comments, in any case, and I am sure she will get around to the question that is in front of the House.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely. I just wanted to contrast that with British Columbia's approach, which was at least a revenue neutral tax shift. According to yesterday's National Post:

“...a new report from the NDP-linked Broadbent Institute...contained a prescriptive chapter on “fair taxes” that, if implemented, really would send the cost of everything rocketing skyward”. So with a socialist form of carbon tax and the NDP economic policies that would cripple our business and competitive advantage, the official opposition members just do not understand the damage they would do ultimately to pay for the programs that we treasure.

I urge all members of this House to support this technical piece of legislation that ensures many of the important measures in budget 2012 are enshrined into action. Now is the time to ensure the sustainability of our public finances and social programs for future generations. International experience shows the importance of taking action now. Building a strong economy has to be our number one priority. With the ongoing global economic turbulence, especially in Europe and the United States, we have to act now. Delaying needed and fiscal reform will only serve to put our financial house in jeopardy.

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

Mr. Speaker, this massive omnibus bill contains a huge number of bills, amendments and initiatives that we cannot support.

The NDP could support some small elements here and there, including the extension of the tax credit for small and medium-sized businesses to encourage hiring, but we do not think that this goes far enough. The NDP's plan went much further in this regard and even offered these businesses the opportunity to receive an additional tax credit if they were able to retain their employees for a year. Yet, the government decided on a one-time initiative to extend the tax credit for just one year. Unfortunately, there is still some uncertainty as to what will happen next year.

Given that all the parties in the House would easily support these small elements, does the hon. member believe that it would be possible to separate them from the bill so that we can quickly debate them? Since everyone would be in agreement, we could pass them and really focus on the main points of this bill—points on which there is opposition and for which we have positive recommendations to make to amend this bill properly.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition members are very confusing at times. At one point they are saying that we should withdraw things, take them out. The next minute they are complaining about not having enough time to debate them.

Obviously, with the MP pensions we were able to move forward. There was a decision by all parties that it did not require further debate.

However, we have a budget. We have a plan and it is an important plan. It is very important that we look at it in the context of our economy, our long-term future and our long-term success. The economy not one statute or one program. It really needs to be looked at as a whole government approach, which is what a budget is.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the member on her speech on this important bill, Bill C-45.

I have heard some complaints from opposition members about the size of the bill. I would like to point out that in reality there are 24 sections. They complain about the number of pages but half of them are in French. One can choose a language, English or French, and that reduces the size.

Some of these 24 sections consist of only one clause. For example, the EI change is only one clause. The Fisheries Act section consists of four important clauses that would actually protect fish and that talks about fines for people who put fish at risk.

Ten committees will look at the clauses in the bill to ensure committees can apply their expertise and ensure they are satisfied.

I would like the member to comment on the hysteria that some are exhibiting. This is a jobs and growth bill, and that is exactly what it is intended to ensure.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think I need to repeat the comments that I opened with. The opposition members seem to be more focused on counting than reading and they need to be focused on reading.

Again, I need to use the example I used before. One line regarding MP pensions translated into 22 pages in the budget implementation act and the opposition felt comfortable moving that forward without any further debate at all.

I encourage the members to attend the technical briefings. I continue to be a little disappointed in terms of the number of MPs who attend these briefings. The briefings ensure they understand the importance of the legislation in front of them.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. However, this House should be reminded that this is another omnibus bill that covers many laws. It is imperative that the bill be debated in this House and also studied in committee.

My question concerns the Navigable Waters Act. Can our colleague tell us what compensation the provinces will receive to defray the cost of their new responsibilities?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to talk about the Navigable Waters Protection Act. I think my example said it all. It was creating a lot of bureaucracy for what was, in this case, a little creek that did not need that bureaucracy associated with it. We were focused on navigation, which is what it is. It is not about environment. Navigable waters is about navigation.

I think what we will find is that it would remove an incredible amount of time and bureaucracy in terms of moving forward. The municipalities are very enthused about having this legislation changed.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today to Bill C-45, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures.

It is very important legislation that deals with a lot of specific technical changes, such as changes to the registered disability savings plan, which was introduced by this government and is a benefit for families to deal with some of the costs related to a person in the family with a disability. It also deals with changes to the Indian Act, which is something that was presented to the finance committee by the member for Macleod. A member of the Kamloops Band presented the idea with respect to changing the ownership on reserves. This would be a real step forward and it is something I will return to later in my remarks. There are number of measures in this comprehensive legislation.

As chair of the finance committee, I thought I would provide some context for members of Parliament and Canadians in terms of the process that we go through to arrive at budget implementation acts.

The process actually starts at the finance committee each fall. In fact, it starts in June when the finance committee sends out a notice asking Canadians to give us their thoughts on what should be in the next budget in the upcoming budgetary cycle. Canadians respond and, over the last two years, in dramatic numbers. This year we have had nearly 800 submissions from organizations and individuals from across Canada giving us their thoughts on what should be in the next budget.

This year we tried a slightly different process. We put five questions on the public website and asked Canadians to respond to those five questions. We put all the responses online. This is the second time we have done this as a committee. We want to be very transparent in terms of the input the committee is receiving.

The deadline for submissions was in the summer. We then had the submissions translated and put online. Members of the finance committee from all parties are now working diligently to go through those submissions.

In addition to that, we are doing what the committee has done for over a decade now, which is to hear from individuals and organizations before the committee. We will hear from approximately 120 organizations and individuals. We will have a very good dialogue with members of Parliament in terms of what should be in the next budget.

This is a very broad process and there is no topic that cannot be raised at the finance committee in prebudget consultations. However, following some of the discussions last year on the first budget implementation act, there was the thought that maybe we should narrow our focus at the finance committee but members from all sides said no, that it should be a very broad public consultation process. Anyone should be able to come and say anything in terms of where the country should go because fiscal matters are incredibly broad. We hear from environmental groups, health groups, aboriginal groups, small business organizations and chambers of commerce across the country, anyone bringing forward any type of measure. This is not simply related to tax, financial or fiscal information. It is very broad. It is a fantastic discussion and I think members from all sides enjoy the debate.

That then leads to the committee deliberating on what should go into the report that it will table in Parliament in December. Obviously, that report is public and Canadians can compare the submissions that came into the committee to what the committee decided in terms of what it wants to recommend to the government for the next budget. The Minister of Finance then takes the report under consideration and presents the budget typically in February or March.

I would remind members that the budget document is the primary document that the government presents to Parliament each and every year and it is a very broad document. Here are some of the sections in the budget that the minister tabled in March.

With regard to entrepreneurs, innovators and world-class research, the budget proposes to support the research and innovation that is happening in this country, as well as education and training at the universities and colleges across the country.

Improving conditions for business investment deals with a lot of the changes to SR&ED and acts on the Jenkins report, which the government commissioned and which I think it was a report that was fairly well received in all quarters.

The budget also deals with investing in our natural resources; expanding trade and opening new markets for Canadian businesses; keeping taxes low for job creators; strengthening business competitiveness; financial sector advantages; and investing in trade infrastructure and opportunities, which involves human resources in terms of investing in the skills that Canadians have.

On infrastructure, there is the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, but all the infrastructure is funded first through finance.

On expanding opportunities for aboriginal peoples to fully participate, obviously we have a committee and a minister that deals with aboriginal peoples but that is all funded through the budget first.

Supporting families and communities, investing in communities, protecting Canada's natural environment and wildlife, and the sustainable management of public finances are all included in a very large budget document, but the budget document itself, as a policy document, is somewhat specific. In certain areas it outlines in general where the government would want to go with respect to items like responsible resource development, the deficit reduction action plan and returning to balanced budgets over the medium term. Various officials then draft legislation to deal with the budget. They typically do two budget implementation acts, one in the spring and one in the fall. They are very comprehensive pieces of legislation.

In terms of the deficit reduction action plan, which is a policy that was endorsed by Parliament after the budget was introduced, all of the specific items under that action plan are then put forward in the two implementation acts which, in my view, is the way it should be happen. The overall policy should be in the budget, but the specific items, which are what we dealt with both in the act in the spring and then partly in this act, actually deal with everything that is in the deficit reduction action plan.

Some people have asked if they would be able to vote. Our colleague across the way from the official opposition asked legitimately if they could vote on each and every section. In fact, they can at committee. As the member knows, we vote on each and every clause at committee and the official opposition and the Liberal Party can choose to support or oppose that specific clause on the record. We can have recorded votes on any specific clause at committee and the member could say they voted in favour of that clause but still oppose the bill at third reading. That is certainly an option for the members opposite. It is important to know that process.

I want to return to one specific item that was raised by Manny Jules, someone whom I think has been a real trailblazer in trying to improve economic development and the economic opportunities for aboriginals within this country. I believe it was three years ago, and I am looking at the member for Macleod and hoping I am correct in my timeline, that the finance committee actually met Mr. Jules.

We went to a former residential school, which has now been turned into offices, and he described to us the challenges that first nations people have in owning property on reserves. He said there have been some steps forward in this area, but we need to do more to change the legislation to ensure that aboriginal people have the same full opportunities on reserve, frankly, that other Canadians have in terms of ownership of property.

It was a very interesting idea. I thought members of all parties listened to the idea very carefully and in varying degrees, I think they all thought it was a good idea that should be followed up. It has been looked at. It was endorsed by the finance committee in a report. While it is technically under aboriginal affairs, it actually did end up in the budget and it is therefore in a budget implementation act.

This is the way the process has worked for years. This is not something the Conservative government has invented. This is, in my view, the way the process should work. It should go back to an idea presented to a parliamentary committee. That committee puts it in a report. It goes in a budget and then it goes into a budget implementation act. There is a thread through that entire process that I think we have to draw attention to.

In terms of some of the other changes in the implementation act, I know members at committee will take them very seriously. They will go through all the items. In terms of registered disability plans, something that we introduced as a government, many of the people who have used the benefit have said there are ways in which the program could be improved.

People talked about the navigation act. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities, municipalities in my area and other areas across this country have said to the government that it has to amend this act in terms of municipalities and their own growth and investment so that they can move forward.

These are responses to things we hear at committee, which are later put in the budget and then come into the budget implementation act.

I want members to go through that whole process. At committee they can do a very thorough study. The government has indicated it is very open to other committees studying the legislation. I heard the member for Wascana say he saw that as something he would certainly welcome.

It is my understanding that we could have any other committee study a piece of the bill and report it back to the finance committee. The finance committee members can then vote yea or nay to any specific clause or provision of the bill.

I look forward to comments from the other side but I do hope they take into account the whole process that occurs, with the policy idea originating here and ending up in a budget implementation act at the end.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech by the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, of which I am currently a member. I found it interesting that he mentioned that, on this committee, members can generally vote on each clause of a monster bill such as this one. He is correct in stating that we vote on each clause. However, that is just one of the steps. There is first reading, which does not require a vote. At second reading, we debate the bill and vote. Then there is report stage, and another vote. Finally there is third reading, which is also subject to a vote.

Each time we must vote as a block. I am sure that the member will agree with me that it is the last vote, at third reading stage, that gets the public's attention. It is also the vote to which government members refer when they say that the opposition voted against a particular measure. If they would just check what happened in committee, they would see that we quite often vote in favour of good measures.

The member spoke about process. The Minister of Finance says that there are no surprises in the budget implementation bill because all the measures were already in the 2012 budget. However, there is no mention of abolishing the Grain Appeal Tribunal, the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission and the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board. So—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I am sorry to interrupt the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, but his time has expired.

The member for Edmonton—Leduc.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, who serves and works very well on the finance committee. In fact I think he made some of my arguments for me in the sense of the process.

First reading, as we all know, is simply an introduction of the bill in the House. Second reading is a broad public policy debate and a vote in general on the principle of the bill as to whether members support it or not. Then at committee stage we go through the bill clause by clause.

We generally start with officials that go through each and every clause of the bill. Members can ask questions. We hear from witnesses who may support or oppose any one of those clauses. Then there are votes on each and every one of the clauses themselves and any member can ask for a recorded vote on any clause. If the member himself wants to vote against the bill in its entirety but support certain clauses, it is on the record. It is public and usually televised. The member could then refer to how he voted any time he wants to.

The bill comes back at report stage, as he pointed out, and there is opportunity for further amendments that could not have been moved at the committee. Then there is a vote on the third and final reading and it goes through the process in the Senate. I think that is a very good process.

In terms of certain items, the deficit reduction action plan, which I referenced in my speech, was a general policy put forward by the government and embraced by Parliament, which said that we wanted to reach a balanced budget in the medium term. The work the Treasury Board committee did on the deficit reduction action plan is now resulting in certain changes that are in the budget implementation act. The start of it was the deficit reduction action plan.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I appreciate the enthusiasm that members have for their comments and questions. I would just ask, particularly when we are in a five-minute question period that follows a 10-minute speech, that hon. members keep their comments and responses as brief as they can. We can see the interest that members have in questioning the various speakers.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, on January 1, the EI premiums are going to be hiked for small businesses something like $400 million. The government is offering a tax credit for small businesses to offset that but it is only $200 million. I would like to ask the chair of the finance committee if he would support doubling that tax credit for small businesses so that his fellow Conservative members would not have to vote for a tax hike on small businesses.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to keep my response brief but it is a fairly technical question. We do not want to do what the previous government did, which was to take EI premiums and use them for general revenues and move toward a balanced budget on the backs of entrepreneurs and people who are paying EI premiums. That is why we want to move to a system that is self-sustaining over the short, medium and long term.

With respect to the hiring credit, I hope the member and his party consider voting for this budget implementation act specifically because of the extension of the hiring credit, which was one of the main things that small businesses and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business asked for in their presentation to the finance committee.

We have also restrained the increase, though, in terms of trying to find a balance between the premiums that are going in and the moneys that are going out from that. It is not a specific fund, but trying to equalize that was also a recommendation made by small businesses. We have to balance every single suggestion, such as the one that the member made, but another suggestion from small businesses was to move to a balanced budget over the medium term.

One of the strongest recommendations of the CFIB each and every year is that the government must move toward a balanced budget and live within its means. We owe it to people living in Canada today and to future generations. We have to balance any increase in terms of a hiring credit or anything else against that need to balance our budget over the medium term.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise in the House and speak to Bill C-45, Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, even though, clearly, it does not come close to meeting the targeted objectives.

I know the government members do not like talking about procedure. We cannot avoid talking about it, because that is how we can evaluate this government's good governance.

We are opposition members; of course we examine the government's initiatives, particularly those like Bill C-45. We look at the elements that we do agree with, as well as the elements that we oppose. And we suggest ideas that we think could help the government get back on track regarding certain elements that we believe are headed in the wrong direction.

We have a majority government that can decide whether to accept or reject the proposed recommendations. However, based on what happened when the previous mammoth budget bill was introduced in June 2012, we know that this government has no respect for this process, which is absolutely crucial to the good governance of Canada, and particularly of our economy, which is having difficulty right now and needs our attention.

We are dealing with a 450-page budget implementation bill, which is not to be confused with the budget itself. This bill amends, adds or repeals 64 different laws. Thus, this one bill affects 64 different pieces of legislation.

I heard my colleague from Edmonton—Leduc say that this is a completely normal process. I imagine that is why the Conservatives did what they did in June. That must also be why they introduced a bill that was 800 or 900 pages long in 2009, when stimulus was needed for the economy during the recession.

This is not normal. According to media commentators, constitutional experts and parliamentary experts, our parliamentary system was not designed for this. At present, the government is using a single bill to address a good number of issues that, in many cases, have nothing to do with the budget, were not mentioned in the budget and could have very easily been introduced in a separate bill. We have been sitting since the middle of September. Many initiatives that were not introduced could have been introduced at that time in order to be examined separately. Instead, they are all included in this monster bill.

The government often says that we should not just focus on numbers, such as the number of pages and acts, and that we must read the bill. But we must do both. We cannot do away with process, because democracy itself is a matter of process. This government seems to have profound contempt for the democratic process and the parliamentary process. We need only think of the fact that the Prime Minister's Office decided to prorogue Parliament, not as part of the normal process to transition to a new legislative agenda, but simply to protect itself and avoid a defeat on a confidence vote in the House. We need only think of the gag orders or time allocation motions, such as the one we saw this morning for Bill C-45. I cannot even count how many we have had since the last election. Obviously, there is also the use of omnibus bills like the one before us today.

Omnibus bills are not the right approach. Unfortunately, that is what the government has decided to use in this case. We find that deplorable because our economy is cause for concern right now. We have told the government many times. Economic indicators clearly show that we are in a period of uncertainty. The latest unemployment statistics are one example. Despite the creation of 52,100 jobs, the unemployment rate increased by 0.1% in September 2012. Between 2000 and 2009, Canadian productivity increased on average 0.6% a year, but the average for all OECD countries was 1.5% per year. So we are lagging behind right now.

The government claims that it is taking measures, such as Bill C-45 and Bill C-38, and that the economy is its top priority, but at the end of the day, we have to wonder if it is headed in the right direction.

I would like us to consider two situations. The first has to do with productivity, which is more or less stagnant right now. Since 2006, the government has tried different measures to increase productivity, but nothing is working.

A good indicator of productivity is research and development. In the budget and in Bill C-45—for once there is something in the bill before us that actually has to do with the budget—the government introduced changes to the way companies are allowed to do research and development. Instead of issuing tax credits, the government has chosen to provide companies with direct research and development subsidies.

Unfortunately, there are two problems with this approach that the government has not yet addressed. The first problem is that these measures leave the door wide open for the government to pick winners in every industry. The second is that a lot of money has been lost in the process. Consequently, there will be no increases in amounts allocated to research and development or in corporate assistance for research and development. Canada will ultimately lose out as a result, and our productivity will not improve. This is a recurring problem.

There is another problem with the overall reduction in corporate income tax. The government usually argues that the general corporate income tax measure, which was extended in the last budget, is a measure that allows businesses to invest. However, there are two problems with that. When the Conservative government came to power in 2006, the corporate tax rate was 22%. Starting next year, it will be 15%. Every percentage point cut results in a reduction in revenue, which varies from $2 billion to $4 billion, depending on the year. The government is foregoing an enormous amount of tax revenue through this measure, in the hope, of course—since this is the argument of the government and many economists—that businesses will reinvest the money and create employment.

What have we seen so far? Businesses are sitting on approximately $500 billion, half a trillion in unused cash or dead money. This money is not being reinvested. It is currently lying in coffers waiting to be used, and it is not benefiting the economy in any way.

Another aspect that has to be considered in evaluating the success of these measures is whether the money has in fact been reinvested. If we look at Canadian statistics on reinvestment, we see that net real investment has stagnated in the past 10 or 15 years. So the government is making massive tax cuts and losing the tax room for various programs and services that help Canadians, but we are not seeing any significant increase in investment. Private sector businesses are sitting on a considerable amount of cash that could be invested in economic growth but is not.

The government has to ask itself some questions about this situation. It has to ask itself why the methods it is using do not seem to be working. Yet, we are seeing no such introspection on the government's part. This is a major problem. We know the definition of insanity.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and hoping that things will change.

That is what the government is doing. Eventually, the Conservatives are going to have to revise their economic ideology to allow the Canadian economy to achieve its potential. Right now, it most definitely is not.

As I told the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, the member for Edmonton—Leduc, there are many things in Bill C-45 that were not in the budget. The Conservatives can do all the mental gymnastics they like, but there are things that were not in the budget, contrary to what the Minister of Finance told the House.

A number of these elements are important enough to warrant separate debate.

Take, for example, the elimination of the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board. It was created by the Conservatives, but never did much of anything. In fact, its only function was to set employment insurance premiums. Once again, a board created for a very specific purpose will be abolished, even though it could have been useful to the government. In the end, even though the government went to the expense of creating it, the board will be shut down, which will result in more power being concentrated in the hands of the minister. That is another example of the use of discretionary authority, which is becoming a habit with this government.

Who is going to cover the cost of abolishing the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission? Workers. These are not trivial matters. We are talking about monitoring hazardous materials that many Canadian workers handle in chemical and pharmaceutical manufacturing. With a stroke of the pen, and with no mention of it in the budget, this commission is being eliminated.

There was also no mention in the budget of abolishing the Grain Appeal Tribunal. The government is trying to make us believe that one measure in the budget, written in very imprecise and vague language, covered this. That is not the case. If a budget is headed in a certain direction and budget items, offices and agencies must be eliminated, then this should be set out in the budget so we can vote on these elements. That is not currently the case.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer raised two very troubling issues that touch on what we are experiencing with Bill C-45. First, he said—and parliamentary experts agree—that members do not have the information in hand that they need to make decisions about the budget.

In April, we voted for the 2012 budget, but we did not have all of the information. The government was talking about eliminating 19,200 public service jobs and making $5.2 billion in cuts. However, we had no idea where these cuts would be made, and where these jobs would be eliminated, or which sectors would be affected. The information is trickling out as we go along.

That was why the Parliamentary Budget Officer demanded that the government be more transparent in the budgetary process by compelling the departments and agencies to report on their cuts. In doing that, he sought to determine what services would be cut and whether Canadians needed those services. Where will those cuts be made? What objectives does the government want to achieve by making those cuts? What will the consequences be?

The Parliamentary Budget Officer is unable to obtain that information, in spite of the Federal Accountability Act, which the Conservative government asked us to pass in 2006. We fully supported that act. However, the government decided to contravene its own act in order to prevent the Parliamentary Budget Officer from analyzing the impact of budget 2012.

Honestly, I have to say that if the Parliamentary Budget Officer cannot obtain that information, members will have no access to it either and will not be able to conduct a proper debate on budget 2012 and its impact.

We are studying Bill C-45, and we are clearly feeling the impact of budget 2012, for which we have yet to obtain all the information.

Bill C-38 very significantly watered down the environmental assessment process, the Fisheries Act and protection of fish habitat. Bill C-45 will have very significant consequences for the environment, among other things.

Now with respect to the repeal of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, that act concerns the environment, despite what the government claims. It is trying to create a smokescreen by saying the act concerns only navigation. That is not true: it refers to the protection of navigable waters, including waters where one can navigate in a canoe. This is a rigorous process that the government is in a hurry to water down in order to repeal certain provisions that the lakes and rivers development sector does not like.

This is a big problem and will have major consequences, like the massive watering down of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the amendments to or massive watering down of the Fisheries Act. Some aspects of Bill C-45 also concern the Fisheries Act. We were surprised when we read the division of that bill that concerns the Fisheries Act, because most of the provisions correct the errors and excesses of the previous budget implementation bill, C-38, which was passed in June of this year.

We introduced numerous amendments that would have eliminated those errors and excesses, but the government disregarded them. I recall that the government would not agree to any amendments during the study by the Standing Committee on Finance or in the House. Now, a few months later, the Conservatives realize the opposition may have been right on certain points and they are quickly changing things so that no one realizes it. That is what is happening now.

Because of the major repercussions that will result from these important amendments, they really belong in a bill if that is the direction the government truly intends to take, and should be treated separately and given close scrutiny.

There is a great deal of expertise in ocean science, oceanography and biotechnology in the Lower St. Lawrence. In fact, the Université du Québec à Rimouski was rated the best research university by the Toronto magazine RE$EARCH Infosource for its work in this field. The University of Quebec at Rimouski has the capacity for this work because of the networking done by the Technopole Maritime du Québec.

Within the institutional community, UQAR, with its oceanography department and ISMER, its ocean sciences institute, has solid linkages and networks with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ Maurice Lamontagne Institute. The UQAR is also linked to private sector organizations like the Centre de recherche sur les biotechnologies marines. The problem is that the massive budget cuts and the dilution of environmental measures put forward in Bill C-38, and reintroduced in Bill C-45, will cripple a region that has succeeded over a 25- to 30-year period in developing internationally recognized cutting-edge expertise. The Maurice Lamontagne Institute’s department of ecotoxicology and the department that studies fish habitat are about to be shut down. The libraries and archives, the only French-language sources serving the university and researchers in the region, are also being closed.

All of these measures, which were not in the budget but derived from it, and about which the Parliamentary Budget Officer would like further details, will diminish the capacity of Rimouski and the lower St. Lawrence to make their mark as international leaders. Is that really what the government wants?

This government should do some soul-searching and look at the measures being put forward in the various budgets tabled and their budget implementation bills. It must seriously consider whether Canada is moving forward or backward.

All of the Canadian and Quebec stakeholders I have heard speak about this issue have a strong feeling that Canada is moving backward. We are deindustrializing and putting all our eggs in one basket, as we used to do when free trade was almost solely with the United States. At least we have been begun to diversify the countries we trade with.

We are putting all our eggs in one basket once again in terms of industries and relying more than anything else on natural resources. This sector is certainly important, but from an economic growth standpoint, it has become the only sector we can rely on. We need to make sure that other sectors in which we could play a leadership role are supported by this government, but there are no signs of this in Bill C-45.

That is why we will oppose Bill C-45 at this stage. We are against the process being proposed and against the content which, although it does contain some interesting ad hoc measures here and there, is definitely not a panacea for the Canadian economy.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have a little trouble with what the hon. member has said.

If the member is arguing that fisheries and forestry departments, or others, require funding, what is the difference between these departments finding their funding in a document of 45 pages or a document of 450 pages? The number of pages in the budget does not change the amount in the budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question. However, I am not quite sure I understand exactly what he is getting at with regard to the fisheries, forestry and funding.

With regard to the number of pages, the length of a bill, whether it is 45 pages long or 200, affects our ability to examine all the measures. In this case, 64 laws are created, eliminated or amended. If we could isolate each of those laws, then we would be able to examine them much more thoroughly than we can in this massive bill.

If the hon. member is referring to the end of my speech, when I spoke about oceanography and research and development, then I would say that yes, we are losing our expertise because of these measures. These measures were impossible to see in the 2012 budget. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is looking into them, but the Conservatives are refusing to give him the information he needs.

Now, with Bill C-45, the government is proposing that the opposition once again vote blindly on a bill without knowing what impact it will have, just as we were asked to do in the vote on the 2012 budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for my colleague.

Generally speaking, a change in tax regulations is a very technical and complicated subject in and of itself. Is this not sufficient justification to separate out this part of the bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, a budget implementation bill should contain measures that change laws specifically related to the budget. Generally speaking, before the Conservatives came to power, such bills made changes to the Income Tax Act or the Excise Tax Act because it was a question of important tax-related amendments. For instance, in the case of introducing a tax credit, the Income Tax Act needs to be amended.

The Conservative government has completely hijacked the process by adding many elements that have nothing to do with the Income Tax Act or the Excise Tax Act. All this government is trying to do right now is concentrate an entire legislative agenda from an economic perspective into one bill.

I would remind the House that since Parliament resumed in September, although the government claims that the economy is its top priority, not one bill on any economic issue has been introduced.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a good question to ask my hon. colleague.

When the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing, that is serious. When the brain does not know either, it is even more serious. This government's stubborn, obstinate refusal to allow anyone to examine its work leads me to believe that the Conservatives are trying to hide their incompetence. I have worked in several fields in my life and I have a great deal of work experience. Whenever someone refuses to have their work evaluated, it usually means they are trying to hide their incompetence and their mistakes.

I wonder what my colleague's thoughts are on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I would go that far. This is a deliberate strategy by the government to minimize the role of members in the House.

It is obvious that, since 2006, there has been a growing tendency, on the part of this government, to reduce the powers of MPs—whether they are in government or in opposition—and to provide fewer opportunities for them to fulfill their role and do what they were sent to Ottawa by their constituents to do.

I find that extremely sad. It is an erosion of the democratic process and our parliamentary system. Members of all parties should be worried, but the government members do not seem to want to talk about it.

We will therefore continue to raise these types of issues because they are important. We must talk about how we address these issues, because they concern all Canadians, just as we must deal with the substance of what is introduced.

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

Mr. Speaker, I very much enjoyed the speech by the member. It was thoughtful and diverse. He touched on a lot of things and I agree with him.

However, as an easterner and a Quebecker who pays a lot of money for expensive Venezuelan and Arabian home heating oil and gasoline, I was surprised that he talked about diversifying the economy without mentioning building a pipeline to bring bitumen to eastern Canada to be refined here to lower our costs and, perhaps most important of all, to provide energy security for Canada instead of exporting more than we import. I wonder if he has any thoughts about that.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of issue that we must be allowed to debate.

As the member mentioned, Quebec imports its refined oil from several countries. Quebec's largest supply of oil comes from the North Sea. However, we import oil from a number of other countries that are not necessarily stable, or where stability has been compromised to a great extent. That is why we have to look at all options.

We are very dependent on fossil fuels, including petroleum. We have to look at other solutions and other options. However, our dependency will not disappear overnight. We must examine a west-to-east pipeline.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-45, the jobs and growth act 2012.

I will be sharing my time with my colleague from the riding of Fort McMurray—Athabasca.

The bill is a continuation of our government's steady focus on the Canadian economy. It is what Canadians want and it is what they expect.

In March the Minister of Finance introduced our government's pragmatic and prudent vision for the future of Canadians, one that looked forward to not only the next few years, but also the next generation.

Since 2006, our government has worked to build a strong economic foundation for Canadians. While the effects of the economic downturn of 2008 were felt in homes and businesses across the country, it was through the steady, constant leadership of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, as well as our Conservative government, that ensured the Canadian economy emerged from the recession well ahead of every major developed economy in the world.

We have delivered for Canadians. Our strong record speaks for itself: the creation of 820,000 net new jobs since July 2009; a 3.9% increase in year-over-year growth in manufacturing output; a reduction of personal income taxes and cuts to the GST; income splitting for seniors' pensions; the creation of a landmark tax-free savings account; and lower taxes on Canadian businesses, with Canada having the lowest tax rate on new business investment among major advanced economies.

Our banking system is regarded as the most stable in the world. The OECD and the IMF predict Canada's economy to be one of the international leaders over the next coming years.

Therefore, when we sift through the partisan rhetoric and the inaccurate facts and figures thrown about by my opposition colleagues, our government's record on the economy is laid to bare.

Ours is a low tax-plan that would help create jobs, while the NDP pushes high taxes that would kill jobs and growth.

Ours is a plan that would promote clean energy and enhance the neutrality of the tax system, while the NDP's massive carbon tax would not only take $21 billion out of the pockets of hard-working Canadians, it would also cripple Canadian businesses and kill Canadian jobs.

We are also extending the popular hiring credit for small business, which benefited nearly 534,000 employers last year. In my riding of Simcoe—Grey, business owners from Alliston to Collingwood spoke to me about how this measure provided needed relief to small businesses by helping defray the costs of hiring new workers and allowing them to take advantage of emerging opportunities.

My first job was as a small business owner. I ran a moving company to get through university. I took my inspiration and direction from my father, a construction company owner: hard work, dedication to employees and a commitment to service.

Like my father, Simcoe—Grey small business owners, like Fred Hamilton in Glen Huron, do not want handouts or government telling them how they should be running their businesses. All they want is a fair shot, an equal playing field and a government that gets out of their way, or at least works with them as opposed to against them.

Small businesses are the backbone of the Canadian economy. As Winston Churchill wisely said:

This is no country of vast spaces and simple forms of mass production...it is by the many thousands of small individual enterprises and activities that the margin by which alone we can maintain ourselves has been procured.

The hiring credit for small businesses does just that. It supports all those small businesses, like the Home Hardware run by Todd Young in Wasaga Beach in my riding. A huge benefit of this program is the tax credit is actually automatically applied. Business owners need not waste their time filling in forms. We have cut red tape as well as deliver a tangible benefit for Canadian businesses.

I am now pleased to speak about the amendments our government proposes to part III of the Canada Labour Code under this legislation.

As members will see, the proposed amendments will not represent significant changes to either employer or employee rights or obligations under part III of Canada's Labour Code. These changes will be part of an overall effort to reduce red tape, cut the cost of government and make our programs and services more responsive to the needs of Canadians.

Part III of Canada's Labour Code establishes minimum working conditions for employees in federally-regulated industries, such as banking, telecommunications and cross-border transportation.

Part III covers hours of work, general holidays, annual vacations and statutory leaves.

Part III also has provisions to help employees recover unpaid wages and get recourse in case they are unjustly dismissed.

The second budget implementation act 2012 contains a number of amendments aimed at making it easier for employers to comply with part III requirements. These proposed amendments will streamline processes, reduce the costs of administering the Labour Code and facilitate the resolution of complaints. We will all benefit from this: workers, employers, and taxpayers.

First, we will be simplifying the calculation for holiday pay for employees from the nine annual paid general holidays provided for in the code. The current method of calculating general holiday pay is highly complex and difficult to apply. Different formulae have to be used, depending upon whether an employee is paid on a monthly, weekly or hourly basis.

In addition, the current eligibility requirements also exclude many employees, for example, part-time workers, from entitlements to holiday pay. The amendments we are proposing will make things simpler so that employers will find it easier to make the necessary calculations for employees' pay and will also make more employees eligible to qualify for these benefits. For regular employees, little will change. General holiday pay will be one-twentieth of total wages, not counting overtime earned in the four week period preceding the week of a general holiday.

For example, Paul, a regular employee working full-time as a manager for a shipping company and earning $1,000 a week would be entitled to $200 in general holiday pay for Thanksgiving.

For employees on commission whose earnings fluctuate, the formula would be one-sixtieth of total wages, not counting overtime, over the preceding 12 weeks. Therefore, Julie, who works as a sales representative on commission and earns a total of $12,000 of the 12 week period before Thanksgiving, would also be eligible for $200 in general holiday pay.

The proposed amendments will also simplify eligibility of requirements for general holiday pay.

It will still be necessary to have 30 days of employment with the employer, but employees will no longer be required to have earned wages for 15 of the 30 days preceding the holiday. This will be beneficial for part-time employees.

We are setting a clear 30-day deadline for employers to pay any vacation pay owed to an employee once his or her employment ends. This will serve to clarify employers' wage payment obligations under the code.

Currently, any person affected by a payment order or anyone who has been notified that his or her complaint is unfounded can appeal the decision. Appeals are heard and adjudicated by external referees appointed by the minister on a case-by-case basis.

Through these amendments, we are establishing an administrative mechanism to review inspectors' payment orders and their decisions to reject a complaint. The internal review will be conducted by the labour program officials and will confirm, amend or rescind inspectors' decisions. This will create a win-win proposition.

The new administrative review process is intended to lead to a quicker and more cost-effective resolution of complaints, while remaining fair for employers and employees.

As members can see, these proposed changes to part III of the code are mainly administrative in nature. Some of them simply formalize existing policy directives.

I should also mention that these proposed amendments will establish provisions in the Canada Labour Code that are similar to existing provincial legislation.

Finally, we are also proposing amendments to the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act to eliminate the Merchant Seamen Compensation Board. While these amendments will streamline the administration of the act, benefits to affected seamen will not be altered.

The board currently consists of three part-time members who adjudicate claims and determine benefits. The Merchant Seamen Act applies to only five shipping operators. Most of these seamen have eligibility coverage under provincial jurisdiction. In a typical year only one claim is made.

Given the very small workload, there is no good reason for the board to be retained and have yet another unnecessary administrative layer. Therefore, under the current legislation, we will remove the Merchant Seamen Compensation Board and provide that authority to the Minister of Labour.

Many of these changes we have proposed to part III of the Canada Labour Code were recommended by the Federal Labour Standards Review Commission, also known as the Arthurs Commission, in a 2006 report. Overall, these changes will not significantly alter the balance of rights or obligations of employees and employers under the Canada Labour Code. I think both employers and employees will benefit from these amendments, which will reduce the administrative burden and hopefully will result in a quick resolution of complaints.

Bill C-45, the economic action plan 2012, would provide my constituents in Simcoe—Grey a plan for jobs and growth, something that all Canadians want. Our government is responding to that by having an action plan in place.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring up a point.

My hon. colleague across the way talked about tax cuts and so on. On January 1, employment insurance premiums will go up for small businesses. I understand that there is a hiring tax credit, but it only covers half of the increase in the EI premiums.

Would my hon. colleague support the idea of doubling that hiring tax credit so she would not have to vote in favour of a tax hike for small businesses.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the employment insurance is dealt with in a separate envelope. Premiums meet the requirements. We are trying to stimulate small businesses and give them an opportunity to bring on more individuals and create jobs. That is something the opposition seems to be unable to do.

Those members voted against initiative after initiative, whether that be the targeted initiative for older workers or apprentice grant opportunities. The opposition members like to vote against job creation. We are about job creation and the hiring credit for small businesses is all about that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to have a bit of back and forth.

On another issue, if oil and gas companies around the world want to make their operations healthier, safer, more sustainable and more environmentally friendly, where do they go for the technology to do that? They go to Canada. However, oil and gas technology companies will be hit by the removal of the eligibility of capital expenditures from the scientific research and experimental development credit. Why is my hon. colleague's government in favour of a tax hike on oil and gas technology companies?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my remarks, this government has been focused on reducing taxes. Whether that be personal income taxes, a reduction of the GST or a reduction for small businesses, that is what we have been focused on.

Every time we bring forward a reduction in taxes, the opposition members vote against that. Their track record is very clear: they want increased taxes or at least not a cut. We are very focused on ensuring we are cutting taxes so Canadian businesses and individuals can be successful. We are creating jobs and growing the economy by doing that. I know my constituents in Simcoe—Grey support exactly what we are doing in this budget. I encourage the opposition to support the budget so we can create jobs, not only in my riding but also in Kingston.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the member's speech very much and the concentration on productivity, the economy and on jobs of course.

However, could she comment somewhat about what the Liberal Party did in the 1990s in clawing back $25 billion from social transfers to the provinces that hampered our schools, our medical system, et cetera? Could she comment on whether that is this government's agenda, whether we will claw back $25 billion in social services to the provinces?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a health care professional and I worked in the hospitals in Ontario when the cuts took place by the Liberal government. There was a huge decrease in our capacity to take care of patients. What this government has done is set an escalator of 6% over the next number of years and then to match GDP so it never drops below 4%. That is going to make a huge difference to people providing care in hospitals in Ontario and across the country. Unlike what the Liberals did, when we had to struggle for operating room time and to ensure we could take care of patients, this government is protecting patient care and I am delighted to be a part of it.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind members that this is another massive omnibus bill that amends many acts. Furthermore, the government has moved a time allocation motion in an attempt to speed up debate, which does not enable us to thoroughly debate this bill.

My question has to do with the fact that this bill will weaken environmental protections and cut funding for research and development. Could my colleague comment on that?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the New Democrats like to talk about how we deal with items when all they want to do is destroy jobs and the economy. Whether it be the NDP carbon tax of $21 billion, which individuals will not be able to afford to pay for that research or afford to run their companies, we are very focused. When it comes to the environment, whether it be the $1.1 billion for the eco-energy tax home retrofit or the billion dollar priorities on green energy generation, this government is focused not only on the environment but on creating jobs and ensuring Canadians have a great quality of life.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thought the points made by the member who just spoke were very well made. In fact, it is very important to see as a macro vision what we are doing as a government and how we are concentrating on jobs, the economy and the strength of the Canadian economy in the future, which of course is very important to Canadians and most important when we do not have it.

I would like to talk a bit about the future goals of the budget bill and what I see as our overreaching goals. That, of course, is to make sure we have better safety and security, more efficiency, the removal of red tape and, ultimately, a better quality of life. That is what this is all about and why I am in this place, to make a better quality of life for the people in my constituency of Fort McMurray—Athabasca and every part of this great country.

Since the Conservative government has promoted Canada's economic action plan, we have seen tremendous growth and development in this country, even while the rest of the world is suffering from an economic decline and people are wondering how they are going to build jobs in the future. Our country is doing tremendously well, and the people of Canada are doing very well overall. There are pockets of unemployment, of course, and we are addressing that with some changes through our economic action plan, as the member said earlier, in employment earnings legislation specifically, and I believe those changes will be efficient enough to move forward with our economy, because that is ultimately what it is about.

Speaking of records, our economy has expanded in nine out of the last ten quarters. That is right; it is very unusual in today's economic climate, but out of the last ten quarters, nine of them have seen economic growth and expansion. As well, 810,000 net jobs have been created since June of 2009. That is no small feat, especially given the size of our economy and workforce. That is a tremendous thing to brag about. The rest of the economies in the world, the G7 and the G20 all recognize that Canada is the leader as far as jobs and growth go and are envious of our position.

Our nation also holds the strongest fiscal position in the G7. We hear that all the time, but it is the truth and something to be proud of and brag about, because we are in such great condition today compared to most of the world. We do not sit on our laurels, though, and we feel we must continue to secure more jobs and have more growth and long-term prosperity because, as I said, that is what Canadians expect of their federal government and that is what we are going to deliver.

With that, we will specifically focus on supporting entrepreneurs, on innovation and research, and on business investment, strategically encouraging businesses and private enterprises to invest the money they have stockpiled during this recession and hire more workers. That is why things like the small business hiring credit and other initiatives from our government are so popular in the small business community. Businesses know, when we put forward a plan like this tax credit, we will follow through with legislation, unlike what happened in previous Liberal governments, especially regarding climate change and other environmental initiatives. The Liberals talked about it but never acted on it.

That is the difference with this government. The Conservative Party puts forward policies based on its economic platform. People can find it on the website, conservative.ca. We have clearly indicated all the initiatives we are going to have over time, that we are going to concentrate on jobs and growth for the economy, remove red tape and get rid of duplication of services so that Canadians know that, when they contact their federal government, they are going to get good service in a reasonable amount of time and just and satisfactory decisions. Clearly, that is what interests me.

Efficient productivity is vital for this country. Productivity moves up and down, and we can make changes today that we will not see on the productivity index for some period of time. I think, bluntly, that the changes we have made over the last six years are tremendous and we will see positive repercussions on the productivity of our nation for decades as a result. We are going to see an increase in manufacturing jobs, a stronger, more robust economy for manufacturers, and workers who are employed and feel job security, instead of what happened over the past decade or two, such as the insecurity of auto workers' jobs, in particular.

I have friends who work in the auto sector. For years and years they wondered whether they were going to have a job in two or three months. We are going to add substance, long-term planning and predictability for companies and corporations such as the auto sector, so they know they will not have to worry about bailouts, that they will have a good, robust agenda for trade and workers and that their jobs will be good for many centuries to come.

Since 2006, our government has also moved forward in the most aggressive manner on lowering corporate taxes to the lowest level of any industrialized nation, 15%. Even the President of the United States recognized this. The challenger to the President of the United States recognized what Canada has done with the economy, how robust our economy is, because we have lowered taxes for corporations.

Even though we have lowered our corporate taxes to 15%, corporate revenues have actually risen to the highest record ever. It is obvious that this strategy by the Conservative government and this Prime Minister is working, is effective and is working well for Canadians. Canadians can count on their federal government to continue that.

We have also provided $500 million to support venture capitalist activities. This is important, because during times of economic slowdown everyone holds onto their wallet tightly and they are not prepared to invest or take risks. As a government, we have to help them move forward on some of these ventures to make sure the economy keeps going, to make sure jobs keep growing and there are new jobs.

We have also extended the domestic powers of Export Development Canada to continue to provide financial support for both manufacturers and exporters, because if we do not trade with the world we are going to lose; our competition is the rest of the world. We need to make sure we open those markets. Unlike what the NDP has been doing for years, and that is working against any trade objective with any country around the world, we are going to move forward aggressively, as we have done and will continue to do, and sign agreements with other trading nations to bring the rule of law, to bring human rights and the acknowledgement of what Canadians hold dear, but also to create jobs right here at home. We are going to continue to do that.

The $14 million to expand the industrial research and development internship program is very important for our future. Of course, so is the $110 million to the industrial research assistance program in support of manufacturers and exporters.

In terms of the environment, I want to talk about a lot of things. There is not enough time obviously for me today, but the environment is very important to me and I see some of the initiatives we have moved forward with as a government, especially in northern Alberta. We have moved forward with initiatives in co-operation and partnership with the Province of Alberta to have cleaner air monitoring services, to make sure the air that my constituents and my family breathe is cleaner at all times. It is the same for water. I applaud those two initiatives by the federal government. My constituents applaud the Prime Minister for those particular initiatives, because we want to make sure we have significant funding strategies in place to keep the health and welfare of Canadians as our predominant concern.

We have also had other initiatives, and I am going to mention some of the success stories: the ecoenergy for homes program; over $140 million toward creating a national urban park in Rouge Valley, Ontario. That park is one of the largest in North America as far as urban parks go. It is a great success story for our government as well, because we do not want to industrialize every part of the country; we do not even want to industrialize most of it. We want to make sure that in urban areas there are places for people to enjoy and have a good quality of life, as we do in rural Canada.

There is $71 million in funding upgrades to the Mayo B hydro facility in the Yukon. This is a transmission line that will increase clean energy and reduce greenhouse gases from energy production by 50%. It took a $71 million investment by the federal government with about an eight-year payback. Those are good business strategic investments by the government for a return on investment for taxpayers that is reasonable and very good.

We also invested heavily in green energy generation, carbon transmission infrastructure, clean energy research and regulatory activities to address climate change. These are only a few provisions.

I want to talk about the navigable waters changes and how important those are, but I see I do not have a lot of time for that. The changes we are making to the navigable waters will protect navigation. That is what it is for and that is important. I am a canoeist. I spend a lot of time outdoors, and I want to make sure this government protects my right and that of other Canadians and future generations to continue to be able to navigate.

Other pieces of legislation, such as the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Fisheries Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, should deal with the environment and with fish. Let navigation deal with the navigation and let those acts deal with what is important for them. If we streamline those things, we can make sure Canadians get the proper return on investment for their tax dollars and we eliminate the need for duplication and bureaucracy that does not accomplish anything. That is what it is about for our government, building jobs, having productivity and efficiency to ultimately give us all a better quality of life.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant.

There are many things wrong with the bill, but first and foremost, Bill C-45 is another omnibus bill that conspires to ram a wide range of unrelated legislation through Parliament. Despite claims from the Minister of Finance, much of this legislation is not included in the budget from earlier this year. The problem with an omnibus bill is that it does not allow MPs to properly study, understand and review the legislation. The very purpose of Parliament and the reason we are here as MPs is to review legislation and improve the laws governing our country. This omnibus bill is a flagrant attempt to prevent MPs from doing their jobs. This is an obvious disservice to the Canadians who elected us to represent them.

Due to the size of Bill C-45, I do not have time to outline all the issues I have with it, so I will restrict my focus to only three sections of the bill.

First, I want to talk about the sections that relate to pooled registered pension plans, or PRPPs. New Democrats have been very clear that we need pension reform. However, the PRPPs are not the solution. Canadians do not have extra money for investing. As it stands now, Canadians are not investing in RRSPs. PRPPs are just another scheme that will have little pickup. Why on earth does the government think people will start investing in PRPPs? If they do not have the money, they cannot invest. Those who do invest in PRPPs will find much of their investment siphoned off by banks and institutions through management fees. PRPPs are another scheme that will add to bank profits, with a poor benefit for individual Canadians.

Seniors represent one of the fastest growing populations in Canada today. The number of seniors in Canada is projected to increase from 4.2 million right now to 9.8 million by 2036. With so many more seniors retiring in the years to come, we need to have the social safety net in place now to avoid dramatic increases in the rate of poverty among those seniors in future. We need real pension reform and not a savings scheme that is dependent on the ups and downs of the stock market. Recent bad experiences in the markets remind Canadians how ineffective that kind of saving is. Too many saw their savings crumble away as the markets took a nosedive. This is not how savings for retirement should be organized.

For employees, a PRPP is like a defined contribution or group RRSP. It is a savings vehicle, limited by RRSP limits and regulations, purported to allow workers to save for retirement, but it does not guarantee retirement security. PRPPs are managed by the financial industry, the same crew receiving huge corporate tax breaks from the Conservatives. The PRPP is not a defined benefit plan. It does not provide a secure retirement income with a set replacement rate of pre-retirement income. It is not fully transferrable. It is not indexed to inflation and therefore will not increase with the increasing cost of living.

It is noteworthy that employers, not employees, will decide the contribution levels, and it will not be mandatory for employers to contribute or match workers' contributions to PRPPs. Without employers contributing, it is not really a pension plan. In fact, employers who do not help their employees save for retirement could end up with a competitive advantage over employers who do.

The best option for Canadians is to double the CPP/QPP. We could do that for the cost to an employee of a couple of dollars a week. This is the best option for Canadians, as the money invested would not be going toward big bank profits but would go into the retirees' pockets when they retire.

I want to highlight one more thing about the PRPP section of the bill. It is long and complicated. It needs to be studied on its own as a separate bill. By slapping this into the omnibus budget bill, we cannot do our due diligence as MPs. We cannot give it the proper critical scrutiny it needs. To be frank, we know the PRPP legislation has passed and is going ahead. Consequently, we do need to make changes in tax legislation.

However, there is no reason for this piece to be in the budget bill. This should be a separate bill that could be scrutinized to ensure that no mistakes are made. It is the reasonable and logical thing to do.

The second section of the bill that I want to talk about today is the portion on public sector pensions. Bill C-45 sets out to increase public sector employee contributions to 50% regardless of the date of hiring; to increase the age of retirement from 60 to 65 for all employees hired after January 1, 2013; to eliminate the ability for public servants to take early retirement without penalty after 30 years of continuous service; and it only allows employees hired after January 1, 2013 to be eligible for early retirement after 30 years of service if they are 60 or older. It is also noteworthy that employees who are 55 or older with 25 or more years of service are eligible for a reduced pension.

New Democrats are concerned that this legislation is creating a two-tiered work force in which younger people have to work longer for the same retirement benefits as their predecessors. This appears to be part of a greater agenda by the government to force young people to pay the price for the government's tax breaks to large corporations.

The Conservatives are taking no measures to curb youth unemployment, and we know that it is the young people today whose OAS benefits will not kick in until they are aged 67. It is their retirement security that is in jeopardy. They are paying more for goods and services, making less money, and their pensions are being cut.

Here I would add that the public service has acted as a model for best practice and has had the ability to attract the best and brightest to serve this country. Public servants work to ensure that our country runs smoothly. They work to ensure that federal services are available to Canadians and that federal regulations are in place and followed. They work behind the scenes to draft and improve legislation. They do research and ever so much more. They ensure that this country runs efficiently.

This legislation will jeopardize the ability of the government to attract the best and the brightest. We cannot afford to risk losing such an integral element of government administration.

I am pleased that we were able to split off the MP portion of the bill, but I would like to note how disappointing it was that my colleagues in the other parties would have been quite happy to lump in changes to the public service pension changes despite this split. That would have left us with no opportunity to debate or address the changes to the public services portion of the bill.

The third section of the bill that I wish to discuss is the changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Canadians have made it clear that they want us to take action to protect their environment and grow a sustainable economy for the future, while the Conservatives are focused on gutting environmental protection.

The changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act are a prime example of Conservative mismanagement. The government has determined, with the exception of a list of three oceans and 97 lakes and 62 rivers, that the act will no longer automatically apply to projects affecting waterways. This will leave thousands of waterways unprotected, meaning there will fewer environmental reviews by Transport Canada. In fact, the bill would remove water protection from the name of the bill. Now it is just about navigation protection.

Of Canada's 37 designated Canadian heritage rivers, only 10 are included in the new act. One heritage river that has been left off the list is the Thames River, which runs through my community and riding in London, Ontario. The Thames is an important part of our local economy and a part of the fabric of our community, a part of its history. These changes would put our river at risk.

To conclude, the NDP will always be proud to stand up for transparency and accountability. We will always stand up for the environment and we will always stand up for retirement security and health care. In short, we will stand up for Canada.

I would like to seek unanimous consent to move the following motion. I move:

That notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, clauses 464 to 514, related to public sector pensions, be removed from Bill C-45, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012, and other measures, and do compose Bill C-47; and that Bill C-47 be entitled an act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Public Service Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act,

That Bill C-47 be deemed read a first time and be printed, and that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates; that Bill C-45 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order; that Bill C-45 be reprinted as amended; and that the law clerk and parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.

We are proposing this motion to ensure that Canada's Parliament can fully scrutinize the legislation before it and to look out for Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. member for London—Fanshawe have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

There is no consent.

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

Mr. Speaker, it might not be fair, but I am going to ask my colleague from the NDP to try to figure out the government's thinking in this particular case.

The bill that has come forward in fact changes a number of different aspects of the EI system. The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities is currently looking at Bill C-44. We have allocated five days for the study of that. It should maybe impact 6,000 people in Canada each year. However, the changes made in the bill will impact 750,000 to 900,000 people, and yet there is no study of it. It is being rammed through in this particular piece of legislation.

What would my colleague see as the government's rationale for doing something like this in making these changes to the EI system?

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

Mr. Speaker, the entire mess around changes to employment insurance, quite frankly, befuddles me.

This is a downward spiral for workers who have contributed so much to our Canadian economy and who provide for their families. It is very clear to me that the objective here is to make Canada into a low-wage economy.

All the government cares about is its friends in the corporate sector, those who make huge profits. By reducing the wages of Canadians and making them suffer in an unfair employment insurance system, it is ensuring that its friends are getting that extra benefit.

The government has no interest in the social safety net of this country. It has reduced transfers for health care. It has undermined the old age security system and now the employment insurance system. It wants to destroy our safety net, not protect it.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech.

She said that important issues will unfortunately not be thoroughly debated, which is too bad. As parliamentarians, we must be able to clearly debate bills that are being forced down our throats, as is once again the case with this omnibus bill.

My colleague spoke about the public service pension plan, and more specifically the impact of the changes made to it and how they will affect future generations. These changes will create a two-tier system. Can she speak to that?

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

Mr. Speaker, the government is very clearly going after any person hired after January 1, 2013. That person will not have the same pension benefits as the people who are currently in the public service. In addition to that, they will face penalties if they retire with 30 years of service but are not of age 65.

That is simply not acceptable. We all know that once they put in 30 or 35 years of service, there is a time when they feel compelled to leave that line of work and retire. That is no longer possible. It is regrettable because, quite literally, people do wear out and need to take retirement.

What concerns me the most is the approach of the government. What it has done is to pit one group of people against another. It does it all the time, but in this instance it is appealing to the basest instincts of people, who do not understand that our job here is not to cut down those who have a decent, secure retirement but to raise up the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who do not. That is what the government should be doing instead of taking pot shots at people who help us run this country.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am in the habit of beginning my speeches by saying I am extremely happy to speak to a bill. In this case, however, with a time allocation motion having been moved, I have to say I am extremely disappointed for my colleagues who would also have liked to make the voices of their constituents heard in this House and who will be unable to do so. It is extremely disappointing to see that for at least the 20th time, time is being limited, and for a bill as gargantuan as this. It is simply scandalous. I am therefore extremely disappointed to be debating a bill that I would also describe as antidemocratic for the two reasons I have just mentioned.

Bill C-45 is the second omnibus bill introduced by the government this year—the second bill of this kind in less than seven months. This is certainly a record. At nearly 450 pages long, this is their second titanic bill. We have to ask ourselves whether the government has an iota of respect for democracy and parliamentary procedure. The answer is self-evident: no, it does not.

Why do I say this bill is antidemocratic? Because Bill C-45 is again going to amend over 40 different statutes, in addition to creating a new one. As was the case for Bill C-38, the various pieces of legislation this bill contains have nothing to do with one another. The bill will amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the Pension Act, the Employment Insurance Act, the Canada Grain Act, and more.

That is why, since the beginning, we have been calling for this bill to be split into several parts, as the leader of the official opposition proposed. The government quite simply has an obligation to agree to that proposal and refer the bill to 13 different committees, so that each of the parts that relate to each committee can be examined effectively and the committees can be allowed to hear the appropriate experts. This an obligation to which the government should be held, in view of that suggestion. The parliamentarians on those committees must also be allowed to present the amendments that are needed to make this bill acceptable.

The government prefers to bundle all these legislative changes into a single bill that will be examined by a single committee and ultimately submitted to a single vote. This is a farce; it is contempt for parliamentary democracy. This is the same thing that happened when the government forced its elephantine bill through Parliament: it is allowing us no opportunity for a thorough examination. The government is preventing the opposition from doing its job, which is to oversee the work on government bills. Instead of showing Canadians that a Conservative government has to be transparent and accountable, the Conservatives have decided to do the exact opposite. What they are proving, as I said, is the extent to which they hold parliamentary democracy in total contempt.

The Conservatives moved a time allocation motion this morning. I do not know how many they have now made since the beginning of this Parliament; I have simply stopped counting. If it were up to them, they would fax the bills to our offices and we would show up here two or three times a year to vote two or three times on a few bills, without examining them adequately. This is quite simply scandalous. Transparency and accountability, to this government, simply do not exist. They seem to be allergic to those concepts. They simply do not want to hear about it.

The Conservatives are introducing a bill like this to have hundreds of changes enacted, changes that I would describe as completely radical, without consulting Canadians—and yet consultation with voters and accountability of the government to the House that represents them are two of the fundamental principles of our parliamentary democracy.

We are not the only ones who think the government is lacking in transparency and accountability. We need only look at what the Parliamentary Budget Officer is having to do to get the information he needs. His job is to assess the budget measures that are in Bill C-38 and their impact. I wager that it will be exactly the same situation for Bill C-45. The government will do everything it can to throw obstacles in the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s way.

The Conservatives are big on giving bills grand titles that mean absolutely nothing, to my mind, while at the same time spending tens of millions of dollars on advertising for propaganda purposes. They have called this bill the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012. The title they have come up with may be a punchy one, but there is nothing in this gigantic bill that will create jobs or stimulate long-term economic growth.

Working people and their families are still going through hard times because of the 2008 recession and the current economic slowdown. They need the government to do something to help them get through these hard times.

The government’s response to their problems is a wonderful “economic action plan” that is eliminating more jobs than it creates. At the end of the day, the only people who are benefiting from the Conservatives' action plan are their friends in the oil companies. With this bill, the million and a half jobless Canadians are being left completely to their own devices by the government.

Bill C-45 will create no jobs, and we are not the only ones saying that. The Parliamentary Budget Officer contends that the budget will result in the loss of 43,000 Canadian jobs. In reality, the budget will cause the unemployment rate to rise. Canadians deserve a government that can create jobs, not raise the unemployment rate.

The measures in the budget are going to affect millions of Canadians. The Conservative government is imposing those measures at the same time as it is doing nothing to combat youth unemployment. As well, it is asking people to work longer in order to be eligible for old age security benefits.

According to the Conservative government, Canadians do not work enough. It is therefore going to cut paid holidays by changing the method of calculating how they are paid. Employees will no longer be entitled to holiday pay for a holiday that falls within the first 30 days after they are hired. As well, employees who are paid on commission will have to work for at least 12 weeks before they are entitled to holiday pay. Government employees are also affected significantly by this bill—as if they had not been affected enough already by the current and upcoming job cuts.

The Conservatives have poisoned the atmosphere in the public service because of how they have managed these changes. This is very serious, but it does not seem to bother our colleagues opposite. They keep hammering away, raising employees’ contribution rates to 50%, regardless of when they were hired. The retirement age will be pushed back from 60 to 65 for any employee hired after January 1, 2013. At present, public servants can take early retirement with no penalty after 30 years of continuous service. However, with this bill, employees hired after January 1, 2013, will be eligible for early retirement after 30 years’ service only if they are over the age of 60. Employees aged 55 and over with 25 years’ service or more will be eligible for a reduced pension.

We are very concerned about this. One group of workers will have to work longer in order to be entitled to the same pension plan as other employees, which is simply unfair.

The main job creation measure in Bill C-45 is the implementation of a temporary hiring tax credit for small businesses. In my opinion, this measure is insufficient because it gives employers a maximum credit of only $1,000, which is available only for 2012. In other words, once the bill has been passed, the year will be almost over and the measures will have a very limited application. Despite its flaws, we support this provision.

All these measures, which will be of no help to Canada's labour market, come on top of the major cuts the government is making to employment insurance. We questioned the Minister of Human Resources to try to make her listen to reason. She did an about-face and changed her approach, but the new approach is not much better.

The cuts to old age security will cost people up to $34,000 in benefits. Health transfers to the provinces will also be reduced by $31 billion.

It is important to remember that 100 inspectors lost their jobs and 300 positions at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency were cut, which led to the biggest tainted beef crisis in Canadian history. Why? It is because the Conservatives did not listen to Canadians when making these many changes. This is no longer the Canada that Canadians believe in.

We will not let the government change the laws, policies and programs that Canadians believe in and that they are entitled to. We are going to stand in the government's way. The NDP has an economic plan to improve the health care system and services for Canadians. We are therefore going to oppose many measures in this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I asked the member for London—Fanshawe to speculate on the thought process behind some of the changes made in the budget by the government and I would ask that presenter to do the same.

With regard to the changes to OAS and the increase of the age for receiving OAS, it seems like the government fabricated a crisis. We see now with the document tabled by the Auditor General that there was no crisis and that any savings at all would have been minuscule. I would appreciate the member's thoughts on this change, a change that would have a negative impact on so many, especially those Canadians who live with disabilities on whose lives it would have a substantive negative impact. What would have motivated the government to embark on this wrong-minded manoeuvre?

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question and his entirely warranted comments.

Unless I am mistaken, the government announced those changes in Davos, outside the country, right after an election campaign. It indicated that it would push back the age of eligibility for employee retirement pensions from 65 to 67. Consequently, many people will indeed be in enormous difficulty because they will have to reach the age of eligibility. I am thinking of those who do physical work, those who work in the construction industry. They are in an extremely difficult situation and will have to wait two more years to receive their pensions. That is utterly inconceivable. When you do physical work, it is hard to wait any longer to retire.

My colleague also mentioned that this would affect many low-income individuals with reduced mobility, because they will have to wait two years and will probably no longer be able to work. Then they will be dependent on provincial programs. Those programs will have to absorb the cost of this change.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech.

I would like him to elaborate a little more on his thoughts about the social costs of the cuts and all the secrecy the Conservatives are engaging in for the second time.

In this bill to implement the 2012-13 budget, the government is preparing once again to amend 60 enabling statutes. Even if only one or two sentences are amended, that is unacceptable, particularly since I am hearing entrepreneurs and self-employed workers say that the Conservatives' cuts are having a greater impact than the last economic crisis, in 2008. This kind of secrecy is unacceptable, particularly when the government claims to be democratic and to be listening to Canadians.

What will the social costs of all this ultimately be?

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question and comments.

It is hard to know what the social cost of all the changes to these many acts will be. More than 40 acts will be affected. If we consider Bill C-38, we are still unable to assess all the changes that will result from that bill.

Some enormous changes can be anticipated. Asking us to study 40 amended acts in a single bill like this is a tall order. Enormous social costs will be incurred as a result of these changes. However, we will not be able to study this effectively or properly. That is the problem with this bill. The government wants to make major changes, but it also wants to conceal them so that we cannot study them properly. That is scandalous.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, I will let the hon. member for York Centre know that I will need to interrupt him at about two minutes to 2 p.m., this being the beginning of the statements by members. He will have just around five minutes or so. He will, of course, have the other five minutes when we resume debate on this question after question period or later today.

The hon. member for York Centre.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Prince Albert on this very important debate that we are undertaking today on Bill C-45, which is the second half of the budget implementation act. It is part of the budget that was introduced on March 29 of this year by our Minister of Finance.

I will begin by talking about one of my favourite movies, The Candidate, starring Robert Redford. Robert Redford was a democratic candidate running for the U.S. Senate in California. When he was picked to run, he was way down in the polls and was not expected to win. He was supposed to be a sacrificial candidate. What happened though at the end of the movie is that he wins. In the very last scene, he and his political consultant were in a hotel room and Robert looks across the room and mouths to his consultant, “What do we do now?”

We knew exactly what to do on May 2, 2011, when our Prime Minister led us to a strong, stable, national Conservative majority government. We did not have to ask what do we do now.

Success does not come by chance. Success is a matter of making the right choices, which our Prime Minister and our finance minister who has been declared the best finance minister in the world by his colleagues, did. The right choices is about building bridges to the future. We are building those bridges. We are not destroying bridges, like the NDP and the Liberals. We are looking forward, not backwards.

The New Democratic Party is a really misnomer. It should be called the old democratic party because it wants to take us back to the old spend-and-tax—

[An hon. member]

They are not democratic.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

That is true, as my friend says.

—policies of the sixties and the seventies.

[An hon. member]

They are a socialist party.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Yes. My friend from Manitoba says that it is a socialist party. Indeed it is. It is a member of the Socialist International. Do members know who is the head of the Socialist International? It is George Papandreou, the former prime minister of Greece who got Greece into that whole mess that it is in now.

[An hon. member]

Socialists will do it every time.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

They will do it every time. The member is so right.

We have a record of success on this side of the House. Our policies through the economic action plan have created 825,000 new jobs, 80% of them full time and 80% of them in the private sector.

We have the lowest corporate tax rate in the world at 15%. We are attracting investment. Our corporate tax revenues are up and are increasing. Governor Branstad of Iowa has said that he cannot compete with Canada because when he tries to attract investment on the global stage, everybody says that they are going to Canada. Forbes magazine has said that Canada is the best place in the world to be doing business. The World Economic Forum has said that we have the safest and most secure banking system for the third year in a row.

Those are all as a direct result of the polices of our government, of our Prime Minister and of our Minister of Finance.

The opposition, however, would take us back. It is hard to keep track. We really need a program of what is going on over there. The leader of the Liberal Party used to be the head of the NDP. It is quite a mess. We really need a program.

However, I will tell members something. When the current Liberal leader was premier of Ontario, it was the welfare capital of North America, taxes were increased, credit ratings were way down, the debt rose to $60 billion—

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

The Leafs made the playoffs.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

The Leafs are undefeated so far this year.

The question we need to ask is whether we want to stop economic growth.

[An hon. member]

No.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

No, we do not. That is the right answer. We want to move forward. We want to create jobs.

I see that I am running out of time. Stay tuned. I will be back after question period.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for York Centre will have five minutes remaining for his speech and the usual five minutes for questions and comments, when the House next resumes debate on the question.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We are going to questions and comments. I assure the hon. member for Malpeque that he still has the full five minutes for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Charlottetown.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Malpeque for his excellent speech. Some of it sounded familiar.

My question for the member relates to economic development on Prince Edward Island. A project that was announced back in 2005 and still has not taken place could have some significant effects to the economy of Prince Edward Island, and he would know that what I am talking about is the construction of a third electrical cable between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, which again is conspicuously absent from any of the economic plans of the government.

I would invite him to comment on the potential impact of a project like that and what it would do, should the government decide to reverse the decision it made in 2006 to cancel the project.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it is because of the electrical cable decision by the current Prime Minister that we probably should have expected the kind of attack that we are seeing on Atlantic Canada and seasonal industries now.

When the Liberal Party was in government, the minister of industry at the time, I believe it was—or it might have been the minister of the environment—signed an agreement with the premier of Prince Edward Island, who was a Conservative premier, for a third energy cable to Prince Edward Island, fully funded by the Government of Canada. It was a signed agreement. One of the first acts of this particular Prime Minister when he came to power was to cancel that signed agreement.

That energy cable to Prince Edward Island is extremely important. Number one, it is quite expensive and it really took multi-million dollars out of the system, I believe the cost was close to $90 million, but it would have provided us an energy alternative, both for expanding our own energy industry in terms of exporting wind power, which is a major policy of the provincial government at the moment, and having it as a safeguard in the import of power as well.

However, the first act of the Conservative Prime Minister was to cancel that energy cable to Prince Edward Island. Now we hear they are in discussions again. Costs are up, but it should have told us at the time that the Prime Minister does not care, because we see cut after cut toward our province.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to be here today. I am splitting my time with the hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville and I am honoured to do that. I know he will make a great presentation.

Today we are here to talk about Bill C-45, Jobs and Growth Act, 2012. It has been 12 years since I was elected to the House of Commons. I was thinking back to when I first came here as a new member of Parliament and how exciting it was to be in this place and to realize that we had a lot of work to do, because the Liberals were in power at that time and we could see that the country was going backward, that things were not working well for the country and it was a bad situation.

The present Prime Minister came to lead our party and in every election we were able to increase our position in the House until 2006 when we came to power—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, order. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources has the floor. I am sure if members have other conversations they would like to have they might want to take those back to the lobby.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the member for Malpeque's frustration. It has probably been a terrible thing to watch what has happened to his party over the years.

However, the Canadian people have rendered their judgment. They have shown great wisdom in what they have done over the years, electorally. The Liberals deserve to sit where they sit right now because of what they have done to Canada over the years and the way they have treated Canadians.

We are happy to be here. We are very grateful for the opportunity from Canadians to be able to serve them. As I was mentioning, in 2006 we came to power as government; in 2008 our minority grew; and in 2011 we finally had the majority government that Canadians wanted to give us, and so we finally got an opportunity to really set Canadians on a defined path to prosperity. That has certainly worked.

We have had some of the thoughest times over the last four years that the world has seen in decades, and Canada has been able to weather those times very well.

In fact, when we look at what the World Economic Forum says about Canada, we see it talks about, for example, our banking system being the soundest in the world for the fourth consecutive year, during a downturn. Certainly our banking system has been one of those rocks of stability in our country that has been able to help us carry Canada through this time.

However, Forbes magazine does not just look at the banking system. It also took a look at the world of business in Canada. It said this is the number one place in the world for businesses to come, to grow and to create jobs.

In a downturn, that is a great honour. I think it is a great tribute, obviously, to the government that has been in power. The government has made decisions that set up a climate that makes it possible for businesses to do really well. We know we have one of the strongest positions in the world, in the G7 in particular, and our rock-solid AAA rating has been proved by multiple agencies.

I think one of the things that I have been really excited to see is the ambitious trade agenda we have had as a government, because we sat for a long time with the Liberals running this country. I notice they are deadly silent on this issue, because they did nothing on trade.

Since we have taken over, we have been able to initiate trade agreements around the world, and we are able to see those trade agreements are now beginning to bear fruit. Certainly they are impacting Canada's relationships around the world in a positive way. We have, through them, not only been able to strengthen our economic and security links with the United States, but we are seeking new agreements with Europe, India, and many others, and those agreements are finally starting to bear fruit.

I should note that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, in particular, has done a great job going around the world. We had trouble with BSE. We were unable to get our markets open. The Liberals could not open those markets. They were incapable of doing that. Our present Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has gone around the world and opened Canadian markets for beef after the BSE crisis. The present Minister of International Trade has shown leadership on this file and, finally, we are beginning to see great changes in the trade file.

We know that deficit reduction is critical. For those of us who do not believe we should be funding today's programs off our children's and grandchildren's backs, we are getting back on track to balance the budget over the medium term.

In the economic action plan 2009, we made a commitment that we were going to return to balanced budgets, and we have done that to a great extent. We cut the deficit in half in the last two years, and we continue to move in that direction. We watched as Australia announced it is going to be balancing its budget, and we look forward to being the second developed country that can do that.

We need to do that. My constituents tell me that is an important thing. They want this government to balance the budget and they want us to move ahead with jobs and prosperity that are a result of that.

I should point out that Canadians should not only be thankful—well, they are thankful that the Liberals are no longer in power. However, they also need to be aware of how thankful they should be that the NDP is nowhere near power, as well. I think all we need to do is actually take a look at the NDP's programs that its members promote and we can probably see why it is a good idea that they are not on this side of the House.

This morning in committee, one of our committee members very enthusiastically endorsed once again the carbon tax plan they have. He went on at length about how this should be done sooner, not later; it needs to be done as quickly as possible. As Canadians are now becoming aware, that is a commitment by the NDP to $21 billion in taxation that average Canadians would have to take out of their pockets, which would drive up the price of virtually everything.

However, it is not just a carbon tax. My colleagues across the way think it is hilarious when we mention $21 billion because they think that every taxpayer's money in this country is theirs, and it is not.

I understand why they would think that. We have a quote from the Broadbent Institute report. They think that in order to tie people together, we need to make it compulsory for them to participate. This is the way they would like to do that. The report says:

Taxes are the hinge that links citizens to one another and to the common good.

I think that pretty well sums up the NDP position as much as it can be. I know there is an older definition of socialism, which is:

Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.

We certainly see those three things in the NDP's taxation policy.

I just want to point out that the Broadbent Institute is straight up about what the NDP would do to Canadians if it got the opportunity. It talks about implementing an inheritance tax. The NDP think that would be a good idea. It would like to put a tax on the inheritance of wealth, which passes on morally unjustifiable class privilege. I am not sure what that is, but I would imagine that means they are going to take money away from people once they die.

The NDP want to have a financial transaction tax, so I suspect the average Canadian would believe that means the NDP wants to tax every financial transaction that takes place in this country. When people are trying to do their business, the NDP will step in, for every single one of those transactions, and gladly tax them.

The NDP says it wants a carbon tax. That is not anything we have not known. It does not want to talk about it. The NDP not only talks about a carbon tax but higher taxes on natural resources. We know the NDP does not want to develop natural resources, but it does not seem to have any understanding about the fact that as taxes are raised on resource development and on corporations, corporations will not invest here.

That is what the NDP seems to want. It does not seem to like corporate investment. We know it does not like trade. The reality is that if the NDP is ever allowed to bring in something such as a carbon tax or higher taxes on natural resources, we can start talking about the Canadian economy declining instead of prospering.

That is not all it said. The NDP said:

—we also need to consider broad-based taxes....

What would that be? I assume it wants to tax a whole lot of other things and wants to do it to pay for more of its social spending. The NDP said it needs to rely on a number of tax bases, so I think we can assume that means new taxes in all sorts of areas because it wants to put as many legs under that taxation stool as it possibly can. It does not matter how much it costs Canadians.

Then the NDP talks about how it needs to have an increase in social spending, which we know is another code word for taxing people even more than in the past.

If we take a look at where the NDP have been in power, what have been the results of that? We can see in B.C. and Ontario that the economies have pretty much collapsed under the NDP rule. However, I think the bigger example would be in my own province of Saskatchewan. The NDP ruled there for far too long, and while it did we saw a complete failure to develop our economy. We ended up with a third of the population of our neighbour when we actually had more of a population than Alberta in 1930. We found our economy probably 30 or 40 years behind our neighbour, just because we had an NDP government that refused, time and time again, to develop the economy.

Canadians cannot afford that. Saskatchewan could not afford it. We are only, in the last five years, beginning to come out of that and are beginning to hold our own and show what we actually have in Saskatchewan.

This economic action plan that we have is good. It is certainly better than anything that we see coming from the other side. This is the kind of action plan that will create jobs. It will ensure prosperity and long-term growth in our economy. Canadians should be excited about it.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the member on one point. We actually love trade on this side of the House, and we are very much looking forward to trading the current government for an NDP government, so just watch out.

I would like to ask the member a question. We have heard repeatedly that this budget is about the economy, providing jobs and helping Canadians. Of course there are so many cuts and so many things are being slashed that the list is too long to go into here.

I do want to focus on one point. In most Canadian cities, even smaller communities, there is a crisis in affordable housing yet there is nothing in this budget that will address the affordable housing crisis in this country. I would like to ask the member why it is that his government has failed so miserably to address this fundamental human right and human need for Canadians?

We have something like two million Canadians who are homeless. Millions of Canadians are in what we call core need housing, which means they are spending much too much money from their income on housing or they cannot find affordable housing. I wonder if the member could address why his government has failed on that point?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. I could go through a whole list of the things that we are doing, particularly for those who need help.

The reality is that the NDP do not understand that what people actually want is a job. People want to be able to make their own money. They want to be proud of themselves and their families. They want to move ahead in life. The NDP would sooner have people dependent on the government and that is why those members insist that they need to tax people until they are pretty much under the thumb of government. Then they argue that they should set up the programs and people would have to put up with it. On our side of the House we believe that people want jobs. They want to be able to prosper. They want to move ahead.

When we talk about the level of taxation that the NDP is talking about, people will not have money to put into the kinds of things that the member thinks are important.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the member talks about no taxes, low taxes, that sort of thing. About a year and a half ago the Conservatives imposed a fee at the airport for travellers. I am wondering why in these such tough economic times, they would impose a traveller's tax.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will talk about some of the things that we have brought in through the economic action plan.

The member talked about something we did a couple of years ago. I would like to talk about the present.

We are doing things like extending for one year the job-creating hiring credit for small business. That is an important thing. Small businesses have told us they need this hiring credit in order to continue to hire during this tough time. It benefited nearly 534,000 employers last year. Why does he not bring that up?

We have been promoting interprovincial trade and making sure that trade is moving across this country. Why does he not bring that up and say we have done a good job on that?

We are facilitating cross-border travel. We have done that. He does not bring that up and say the government has done a good job on that.

We have reduced red tape.

We are reducing fees for Canada's grain farmers in this budget. He should stand up and say that is a good thing. He should say that he likes to see us make it simpler and easier for farmers to do their jobs.

I could talk about other things as well but I will stop there.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, at one time former premier Ernest Manning was asked what the magic was that helped to create the wealth in Alberta. He said that it was the election of NDP governments in Saskatchewan, which drove all of the capital from there over to Alberta.

I wonder if the member could speak to some of the new things that are here because of the budget and the assistance that his province is gaining from that.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it just about brings tears to my eyes to hear that. The reality is that was a true statement. We had folks like Tommy Douglas, who refused to develop our resources. He said they were going to be left in the ground. Those resources could have been developed and we could have had a strong economy. We could have done a lot of the things that members across the way would like to see happen in our province. We left it and we let it sit there.

When private companies started to develop, such as the potash industry for example, the radical Blakeney government nationalized it and drove it into the ground until it had to be sold to the private sector. The private sector has redeveloped it and now it is a flagship in our economy. We have seen numerous examples of that. We saw that in Alberta. Over the last few years our province has finally freed itself from that kind of thinking.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend, the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands for sharing his time with me today.

I am thankful for the opportunity to rise in the House today and speak to Bill C-45, the jobs and growth act, 2012. Since being elected to this place I have spoken to every budget bill presented. The budget very much sets the tone for Canada's economic performance, for strong job creation and continued growth.

My riding of Mississauga—Streetsville is an excellent example of a community where both residents and businesses can flourish. We have a very strong mix of residential and commercial development. We encourage people to live and work in our local area. We have a very strong Streetsville business improvement area, adding to the character and heritage of an historic village setting. It is a community that comes together and supports one another. It is very much a shining example to all of Canada.

However, none of this happens if we do not have a strong economy, if we do not have growth and if we are not helping to create jobs. Therefore, I am pleased to speak in the House today of my support for Bill C-45, which lays out a strong plan for Canada's and my community's future.

Our government is on the right track for the Canadian economy and Canadian families, with over 820,000 net new jobs created since July 2009. However, we also know that the global economy remains fragile, especially in Europe and the United States, our largest and most important trading partners. That is why our government is working hard to support the economy with positive pro-growth measures in economic action plan 2012, such as the job-creating hiring tax credit for small business.

I am delighted to see that Bill C-45 extends this credit of up to $1,000 against the small employer increase in its 2012 EI premiums over those paid in 2011. The credit will help approximately 536,000 employers, many of them in Mississauga—Streetsville, whose total EI premiums were at or below $10,000 in 2011. Small and medium-size enterprises are the real job creators in our economy. It is our job to ensure that they can create and sustain jobs for the future.

I am very often amazed when I talk to business people in Mississauga—Streetsville about how many are engaged in international trade. Our government's ambitious pro-trade policies are helping these businesses maintain or improve market access in burgeoning economies around the world. We must continue to open doors so that our businesses can sell their goods.

Unlike the opposition, we are embracing new trade agreements that will benefit thousands of businesses all across Canada. Bill C-45 continues the important work of breaking down interprovincial trade barriers that often make it difficult for businesses to do business right here at home.

Bill C-45 also proposes expanding tax relief for investment in clean energy generation equipment. We are taking a responsible approach to continued economic growth, while balancing that with improved environmental protections. As Canada's energy needs continue to grow, we must play our role in encouraging new green energy technology because it is a win-win proposition.

Unlike the NDP, we would not impose a job-killing carbon tax that would tax everything we consume, everything we need and everything we do. Instead, we will continue to lower the tax burden for all Canadians.

The bill would also make important changes to registered disability savings plans. How we treat the most vulnerable in our society is paramount to Canada showing how caring and compassionate we are. To give families greater flexibility, we propose that parents who save in registered education savings plans for children with disabilities allowed to roll over investment income earned in the RESP to the RDSP if the plans share the same beneficiary. The bill would also make other administrative changes to ensure even fairer benefits to those who qualify.

The scientific research and experimental development, or SR&ED program, has been a wildly successful project of our government. The budget bill would make further improvements to the program to ensure its fairness and that benefits would continue to accrue.

We continue to very much look forward to ensuring that Canadians have important vehicles to save for retirement. I am pleased that Bill C-45 would amend the Income Tax Act to accommodate the new pooled registered pension plans we announced earlier this year.

The bill would also make important and timely update changes to the Canada pension plan, which were unanimously agreed to by all federal, provincial and territorial finance ministers.

As we are fortunate to have a strong financial services sector, we need to ensure it remains so. The bill would help to preserve the stability and strength of Canada's financial sector. Amendments to the Payment Clearing and Settlement Act are proposed to ensure that derivatives clearing activities are treated in a similar fashion as the clearing of cash securities under the PCSA.

The bill would also improve the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation to reinforce Canada's financial stability framework. The proposed amendments will enhance the CDIC's ability to take on and preserve critical functions of a failed CDIC member through a bridge institution and provide for a limited automatic stay on the ability of certain counterparts of a failed member to determine certain eligible financial contracts. A stronger CDIC is a very important part of a strong financial system in Canada.

The budget sets an important tone on pensions in the broader sector to ensure that employees and employers equally contribute to their pension plans, just as MPs will now do through the bill passed unanimously last week in the House.

It is a great honour to serve as a member of Parliament. Each and every day we have the responsibility to act in the best interests of our neighbours. When I campaigned door to door, and when I continue to talk to residents in my community when at home, I pledged at that time, and continue to pledge, that our number one priority is jobs and economic growth. I promised to stay focused on this and to support measures that would attain this goal.

Therefore, today I am pleased to indicate to the House and the people back home that I support Bill C-45 and its obsession with jobs and growth. Unlike the other parties in the House, we have a strong economic action plan for a better and brighter future for all Canadians.

These bills are very important in ensuring that Canada continues to move in the right direction. We see the uncertainty in the world. We see the challenges other countries are having. We must keep our foot to the pedal and keep moving to ensure that Canada remains strong at a time when there continue to be difficulties around the world.

I am delighted to say that I will be supporting Bill C-45 and onward and upward to continuing to build Canada's great economy.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member talk about the great honour of being a member of Parliament. He does put some importance on the role we have and how important it is for us to be able to do our jobs. However, Bill C-45 does not allow us to do that because the Conservatives are not willing to accept any amendments. We heard that from the member for Saint Boniface earlier and I have heard similar comments from other members as well.

Would the member be willing to work with the opposition and accept amendments that we propose or does he share his government's disdain for transparency and democratic principles?

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not quite share the same level of doom and gloom as the member opposite.

From what I have been informed, there is a commitment that sections of the bill will go to eight or nine standing committees, where there will be witnesses, hearings, debate and discussion. That is why we are all elected to this place.

As the same time, this is a government budget bill. We are the government. We were elected to be the Government of Canada and because of that we have a leadership responsibility. Our responsibility is to present a sound economic plan for Canadians and allow the House to debate it. However, at the end of the day, the way British parliamentary democracy works, if the majority of the members of the House of Commons vote in favour of a measure, it passes.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, by way of illustration, today I spoke to a constituent of mine who had great concerns about the employment insurance changes.

The Conservatives talk about an action plan, the creation of new jobs and the furthering of work. They want to make EI changes so people will have a chance to go from part-time to full-time work. However, the problem with the changes they have made is the gentleman I spoke to will work one day and get $27 less on his cheque. If he works two days, he will get even less than that. He has to turn this down because it is just not worth it for him as he will get less money as a result.

Now the Conservatives have eliminated the extra five weeks for seasonal workers, which sees them to that period where they can get to that next job.

How does the member feel that this is some kind of action plan worth voting for?

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member opposite is referring to the working while on claim program.

It is important to remind the House that it is a pilot program. Pilot programs are brought in and are assessed on how they work. Is it a good program? Is it helping out more people?

There is no doubt that the working while on claim pilot is helping more people than it is not. However, the minister announced a couple of weeks ago that she would be performing a review of the program to ensure that we did not have situations where people were taking work and being penalized for it. The goal is to get more Canadians direct work experience while they are on an EI claim.

I want to talk about the really good changes to EI, which we are now debating at the human resources committee, and that is to provide parents who have critically ill, missing or murdered children compassionate benefits under EI. It will benefit thousands of families in the country. I hope we can count on the opposition to rapidly support that bill and get it into law.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the obsession of my colleague for Mississauga—Streetsville with economic growth and prosperity and how Bill C-45 contains the bridge to strengthen trade act among its important provisions for moving the economy forward.

This is not only a huge construction job for our region, promising thousands of construction jobs, but it will expand our trade capacity. It is the number one infrastructure priority of the government to have a new bridge between Windsor and Detroit.

Could the member comment on how that is a critical aspect? Also, how could the NDP be opposed to that?

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the announcement of a new bridge from Windsor to Detroit is very exciting. The city of Mississauga is actually one of the trucking capitals of Canada. We have more trucking firms and transportation firms in Mississauga than perhaps any other part of the country. This is a huge benefit to trucking firms located in the city of Mississauga which will move goods back and forth across that new bridge all the time. It will create thousands of new jobs. It is great for the economy and great for the environment because the trucks will move back and forth quicker. Those folks are against it.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

There are two minutes remaining today.

The member for Terrebonne—Blainville.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed to rise in this House today to condemn yet another omnibus bill, the government's second mammoth bill. That is certainly a good descriptor for another completely undemocratic bill.

Last time, we stood in support of democracy for 22 hours in this House because we wanted to denounce this completely undemocratic behaviour. It is not surprising that we lost in the end, but I told myself that at least it would be the worst bill that the Conservatives would get passed during their term. But no, there is another one. There are more environmental laws to destroy and dismantle; the government wants to go even further. There are still protections for our navigable waters, after all. It will continue to charge forward with legislation that has nothing to do with the budget.

I would like to respond to the allegations that we did not read the budget. Yes, we read it, except it was so vague that one sentence could have been destroying or amending one act or 20 different acts. All in one sentence.

These are not budgetary measures, so they should be individually debated by the appropriate committees, not presented in a big document that is over 400 pages long.

How is the public supposed to digest all of this information? I see that my time has expired, but I will come back to this tomorrow.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 6 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from October 25 consideration of the motion that Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie. He will speak for 10 minutes after I finish the eight minutes I have remaining from yesterday.

I started yesterday's speech by pointing out that this bill is completely undemocratic. We are debating more than 400 pages under a time allocation motion, so we will not have a chance to discuss the bill thoroughly. It is all well and good to say that we will have the chance to study the bill in committee, except we will not be able to make amendments. When I came to the House, I thought that we were supposed to debate ideas to find compromises that reflect the values, ideas and wishes of the Canadian public. But that is not the case and I am very disappointed.

The bill is called the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012. This title is a bit misleading, since the bill does not propose any concrete measures to create the 1.4 million jobs needed in this country. As we know, the budget actually led to the loss of 43,000 jobs. It is not creating jobs; it is causing them to be lost.

The government tells us that the $500 million in cuts to research and development can help stimulate innovation, except that we have not yet been told how it will bridge that gap. We do not know the new criteria for research and development, and those would be very useful to know. It would stimulate our economy and motivate people to innovate.

This week I attended a conference that addressed the importance of innovation, particularly in the technology and computer industry. If the government does not invest and does not compensate for the $500 million shortfall in research and development, I do not understand how it will ensure economic growth.

The bill includes a $1,000 tax credit that will help create jobs in small- and medium-sized businesses. This is a measure that we support. We have always supported these types of measures. However, I would have liked to see a longer-term commitment, since $1,000 is great now, but if an employer is considering hiring workers in one or two years, he would probably like to know that this tax credit will still be available.

What is really crucial when it comes to economic growth is ensuring that we invest in our environment. We must create a green economy and invest in it. With all of the restrictions and the changes made to our environmental protection laws, I have a hard time imaging how my generation will see any economic growth in 20 years. The protection of natural resources and natural resources themselves are an incredible source of wealth for this country.

Instead of creating jobs, Bill C-45 completely destroys the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Thousands of waterways will no longer be protected. The changes are huge. The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, which will examine this, will not even be able to propose amendments. It is truly shameful.

Furthermore, the bill removes the notion of “water protection” and replaces it with “navigation protection”. There is a huge difference between the two definitions. Once again, this will not be examined. The bill also reduces the number of environmental assessments indicated in the Environmental Protection Act.

However, the bill does have one good measure for the environment, but the amount allocated is very small. The bill includes a tax credit for certain kinds of green energy equipment and products. It is a good measure and I congratulate the government on this, but $3 million to $5 million is peanuts; it is not enough. This does not demonstrate any real desire on the government's part to invest in the green economy, which would help create jobs. Everyone knows this; studies have proven it. I think this is really a missed opportunity.

The bill also eliminates the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission and puts more powers in the hands of ministers. We saw the same thing with Bill C-38, which unfortunately also passed and was just as undemocratic as this one. That bill also eliminated several commissions and gave more powers to ministers.

What is the point of conducting studies and hearing from informed and educated people who are experts in their field, if the government does not want to listen to them? They betray their ignorance by saying that, because they are ministers, they know everything and there is no need for experts or their advice. Our country is vast and the population is growing. We have to take into consideration what the majority of people want, and this advice could help us do that.

The plight of our young workers is of particular concern to me because, before I was elected, I was a labour relations officer with a union that represents young workers. Last year, in a discussion group, I spoke to young workers who said that they were very worried about the fact that a two-tiered pension system is being proposed.

Young workers are going to enter the workforce, and their pension benefits will be less than those of people who entered the workforce before them. That creates two categories of employees: those who were there first and young workers. Young workers begin their careers saddled with huge debt they have accumulated to finance their post-secondary studies. They have a hard time finding work, because the youth unemployment rate is very high. Furthermore, once they enter the workforce, the public service pension plan will change. They will be told that they are entering too late unfortunately. This will create two classes of workers, which is not good for our young people.

And this is all happening without any real debate. I support some of the measures in the bill, but because everything is lumped together, I cannot support this completely undemocratic bill.

Every time that the government asks why I ask a question when I will be voting against a measure, I will answer that I am proud to oppose it because the NDP will always oppose undemocratic measures. We will always be proud to support transparency and accountability. We will always defend environmental protection, retirement security and health care.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with much humour to the member's statement about the government being ignorant and the minister not understanding certain things that those members have to say about the bill. It is absolutely astounding that the member of that party can stand up and complain about not having enough time to study the bill when budget information has been out for several months now.

Since I have been in this House, and this is my 20th year in the House, the NDP has never voted in favour of a government bill. Those members have always given fair warning that they would be voting against government budget bills even before they were read in the House. I do not know how she can stand and say that NDP members do not have enough time when they have already said that they will be voting against the bill before it was even presented.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member opposite knows we have voted for budgets in the past in minority situations. In his wisdom, he should know that.

Regarding the lack of time for the budget, yes, we received the lovely budget document and indeed we read it, except that the budget tabled in March contained so little detail. We might see a sentence saying they were making changes to environmental protection and expediting the project assessment process, but it is just one sentence.

Now, we have been landed with a document over 400 pages long. It is easy to understand that one sentence does not give us a lot of information.

The information is coming, certainly, with this bill, but it is in a 400-page brick. I think it is truly shameful to think this is acceptable.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Cariboo—Prince George said just now that the bill has been out for months. And also, the member has been here for 20 years. I do not know what he has done in those 20 years, but he does not realize that the bill came out last week. That is not months, that is a few days.

Again, we are discussing the time allocated for the bill. The Conservatives like to get up and say how good and fine the bill is and that we should support it. If the bill is so good and so fine, and if we should pass it, why do the Conservatives not want to talk about it and why are they trying to cut off debate?

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Nickel Belt raises an excellent point. In fact, this omnibus bill probably has more pages than any other in 20 years. The member opposite who just asked me a question should understand that bills like this are unacceptable.

If the Conservatives are so proud of this budget and this omnibus bill, which is over 400 pages long, why can we not have some real debate? Why can we not make amendments that might improve this bill? Why not let the people of Canada and Quebec examine this legislation properly and listen to the advice of experts and academics from all across Canada? Because all they want is quick passage of these bills. There is too much to digest, even for the media. They have to pick the most important measure to discuss in the media. There is really too much to digest.

If they were so proud of their legislation, they would want to discuss it at length.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak about what is called Bill C-45 and about the fact that the government opposite has decided once again impose closure. How many times does this make? I think it is 33. In the early days, we were up in arms. It was unbelievable that closure would be imposed in the House of Commons. Democratic procedures are not the government's forte.

In terms of the budget, in March 2012, the economic action plan was released. We know it was; we saw it on television. There was a lot of publicity about it, and the Conservatives even spent more than they had set aside for it. I would like to congratulate them on putting money into something that was passed in March 2012 and exceeding their own budget, when this money could have been used to help those in need.

Families in my riding of Brossard—La Prairie now have to go to food banks to ask for food, even though they are employed.

With regard to the process, the budget was tabled in March 2012, and then we had to study that brick of a document. The Standing Committee on Finance had to study the repercussions of the first budget implementation act. It was also an omnibus bill that affected many pieces of legislation. The Conservatives were nice and they let a finance subcommittee study a little bit of the bill.

All this just to say that this process is quite impenetrable and there is a flagrant lack of transparency. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is even threatening to take the government to court because it is not giving him all the information about the financial implications of its own initiatives.

Last week, Bill C-45 came along. This bill has some 400 pages. It contains amendments to some 40 pieces of legislation. The government has learned something at least. It knows these bills do not go down well with Canadians or with the opposition. It has agreed to split them to some extent in committee, but only for the purposes of study. Then the bill will be sent back to the Standing Committee on Finance, of which I am a member. We are going to have to study it, because the government has not even agreed that amendments may be made in committee.

The government has learned that omnibus bills are unacceptable. It agreed to separate it into 10 parts. This shows that the bill covers incredibly wide-ranging elements. Furthermore, not all these elements are necessarily related to the budget. We also know that the members on the other side complained about omnibus bills when they were in opposition. Now they have become experts in omnibus bills.

Also, I would like to put how the economy is doing into context. I know that my colleagues across the way know we are in a fragile economy. The IMF, OECD, and last week even the Conference Board of Canada said that a restorative budget would not help in terms of difficult times. Right now we are having difficult times and the government is not listening to what economists are saying.

Since the Conservatives took power, the gap between the rich and the poor has increased. Right now it is increasing more rapidly in Canada than the U.S. That is a problem. The Conservative government is not taking that issue seriously.

As well, household debt is at a record high since the government has taken power. That is a problem. What has the government done? Nothing. One of the reasons we have arrived here is because of the government's inaction. One of the problems we have is that the government is not listening to what Canadians are saying or looking at how they are living now. That is another huge problem.

My colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville also mentioned that the unemployment rate among young people is double the normal rate. This is a problem. What is the government doing? Nothing, once again.

To address all the problems, we want the government to invest in the future, to support green energy and the green economy.

The Conservatives have invested about $3 million in tax credits for the green economy. It is a start but it is not really very much considering the size of the budget.

With regard to the corporate tax cuts, the Governor of the Bank of Canada noted that one of the problems was that there is $500 billion in dead money sitting around.

Even the Minister of Finance has realized that money is not being reinvested in the economy. What was his solution? It was to tell the companies to reinvest that money. However, just telling them that does not work. We need to take action. We have seen that the actions taken by the government do not work.

I do not want to use unparliamentary language but, when the Minister of Finance rose to speak on Bill C-45, he was very disrespectful when he said that we did not do our job last summer and that we were supposed to have read his budget. We read his budget a long time ago. When it came out in March, we took notes. He said that everything that was in Bill C-45 was in the budget.

We had a briefing session with senior officials last Monday from 7 p.m. until 1 a.m. just to review Bill C-45 in its entirety. I asked those senior officials and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance where in the budget the changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act in Bill C-45 were mentioned. According to the government and even according to the Department of Transport, the purpose of that act is to protect the environment.

She referred me to page 282. Here is an excerpt from this page where the transportation portfolio is mentioned. I asked for the exact reference because, of course, there is no reference to the environment or to navigable waters protection. She mentioned one line: “Transport Canada, 2012-13, $37 million.” According to the Minister of Finance, we should have understood that this was a direct reference to the protection of navigable waters, of all of Canada's lakes and rivers. He seemed to be saying that environmental protection is covered in one tiny little line that mentions $37 million. By the way, $37 million is the amount cut from the budget for transport. Go figure.

The Minister of Finance said we had not done our homework. It is very difficult to do our homework when the minister himself hides what is happening. The other side is improvising. This is why we are faced with a bill which now includes things that were not originally in the budget, things that we need to ask questions about. The Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Auditor General both agree: the government lacks transparency. It is the least transparent government in the history of our country. This is no surprise, since the government was overturned for the way it was treating Parliament.

It is disappointing to see the government's attacks on democracy in an effort to ignore it completely. It is keeping parliamentarians in the dark. We ask questions, but they remain unanswered. Even the other side does not know the answers.

The Conservatives are improvising. We asked senior officials questions to figure out what the cost would be. They replied they had not done any reviews and would just wait and see. The other side must realize how disturbing this is. At a time when our economy remains fragile, we need a clear vision, and such a vision is obviously missing from the other side. The government did not learn anything from public reaction to its last omnibus bill.

In my riding of Brossard—La Prairie, I had the chance to hear from people representing many organizations including Le Partage, the Mouvement Action-chômage, the Congress of Union Retirees of Canada and Humane Society International. They told Canadians what was in the last budget implementation bill and how it would impact them. We hope that this time, the government will pay attention to what the opposition has to say.

[Sana Hassainia, NDP, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Brossard—La Prairie for his excellent speech and his excellent analysis.

In a true democracy, legislators take the time to study the bills they introduce, to discuss them and, most importantly, to listen to expert testimony. Once again, the time we have to study Bill C-45 has been cut short by the Conservatives. I would like to know what my colleague from Brossard—La Prairie thinks of the message the government is sending Canadians by invoking closure for the thirtieth time, at least, to prevent us from having a real debate.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Verchères—Les Patriotes for her question. She said we are experiencing problems in terms of democracy.

We want to do our job. The government, however, intentionally keeps information from us. As parliamentarians, we have a very hard time obtaining information. How can we make decisions when we do not know what consequences they might have? How can we vote on a bill when we have no idea if its effect will be negative or positive?

I think it is understood that we want this information and that we are trying to do our job. It is the government that is keeping information from us. We have asked senior officials and government members questions, but they do not even have the information. We are now calling for consultations and discussions to better understand the scope of this budget. I have to admit there are some good things in the bill, such as the provisions concerning transfer pricing.

Fine, it is one start.

What is missing is debate and discussion. For example, when parts of the budget amended the Indian Act, first nations were not consulted. The government came up with the changes and put them in place without talking to the people involved. This is why we need to do it now.

Unfortunately, the government is not listening to us, once again.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that the budget was first introduced on March 29 of this year, roughly six months ago. We are already halfway through the year. There was plenty of time to read the budget. I have heard repeatedly from the member and others in the opposition, particularly the NDP party, about the length of the bill. There are many high school and university students across this country who have textbooks that are longer than this bill. Members in the House have had more than six months to study the bill.

My question is this. There is time allotted for each member to speak about the budget, and the opposition is continually referring to the fact that there is not enough time for debate. Let me remind the member that the leader of his party, just two day ago, spent 45 minutes in the House talking about the budget. In addition, and I will close with this, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster spoke for 13 hours on this budget. Who are they kidding? Canadians from across the country have had enough of this nonsense. We need to get the work done.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think my colleague was listening to my debate. If he heard what I was saying, budget 2012, which we saw ads on TV for and we paid a lot for, was submitted in March 2012. There is a line for Transport Canada that says there will be $37 million, and from that we are supposed to understand that the Navigable Waters Protection Act will be amended and will have an effect on all the lakes and rivers in Canada. What are we supposed to learn from that?

Now we see the government improvising on that front, by changing websites and taking “environment” out of it. The idea was to protect the environment. It is clear the government has not done its homework, and that is only one example. There are tons of examples of things that were not in the budget or that were made reference to with no explanation. It was only last week that we got Bill C-45. I know how to read a lot of legislation, but this is overdoing it.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before we resume debate, I want to inform all hon. members that we have passed the five hours of debate and, as such, all speeches from this point on will be 10 minutes.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to talk about in this budget but I will have to say it all in 10 minutes rather than 20 minutes. My colleague for Ottawa—Vanier suggests this might be bad news for me but good news for him. I always appreciate his thoughtful commentary on such matters.

I want to start by picking up on the point that my hon. colleague was making a moment ago in his response to a question. I have to say that I disagree with him somewhat. He complained that the budget bill is very large, as he was waving a copy of the budget, which is also very large. It is reasonable to expect that a meaty budget would produce a meaty and detailed piece of legislation.

Although I suspect a few of my constituents sit down and read most legislation cover to cover, I think that sometimes there is a tendency to expect that Canadians will not actually read the budget implementation act and that they will take it on faith that a very large bill is somehow inappropriate.

I want to point out that the nature of the many small detailed adjustments that are being made to government spending require a certain amount of space. To make this point, I will turn to Bill C-45 on page 228, which deals with pay for judges under the Judges Act. It deals with the salaries for every federally appointed and paid judge in the country, starting with the Chief Justice of Canada. It includes a series of amendments to the Judges Act because these salaries are legislated. Members would understand why we would not want to have judges salaries be discretionary, which is in order to preserve the independence of the judiciary. I will just read a bit of this to give a sense of why there is so much volume in this act.

210. Sections 9 to 22 of the Judges Act are replaced by the following:

9. The yearly salaries of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada are as follows:

(a) the Chief Justice of Canada, $370,300; and

(b) the eight puisne judges, $342,800 each.

Puisne judges here are what we call associate justices. By the way, what has changed from the current Judges Act is that the actual numbers are changed because of salary increases from the current level.

It goes on:

10. The yearly salaries of the judges of the Federal Courts are as follows:

(a) the Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Appeal, $315,900;

(b) the other judges of the Federal Court of Appeal, $288,100 each;

(c) the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, $315,900; and

(d) the other judges of the Federal Court, $288,100 each.

11. The yearly salaries of the judges of the Tax Court of Canada are as follows:

(a) the Chief Justice, $315,900;

(b) the Associate Chief Justice, $315,900; and

(c) the other judges, $288,100 each.

It then goes on for every single provincial court, starting with Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and finally getting to the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories, which is the very last one several pages on.

They all have different salary levels currently and we want to have them go up proportionately. There is no other way of doing this than by laying the text out in this manner and it takes a certain amount of space, which is typical of the kind of content we find in this budget implementation act. It is detailed, thoughtful, methodical and, by necessity, takes up space.

This is not, as some members of the opposition have suggested, the budget version of Marcel Proust's In Search of Lost Time. This is actually a very reasonable, methodical, practical way of dealing with the very complex business of managing a country's national government's expenditures.

The main theme of the bill is bringing practical restraint after years of expanding government budgets. Of course, these were the expansions in the government's budget that took place in the wake of the financial meltdown of 2008.

At that time, the argument was made very forcefully by the opposition that the government must spend more money on stimulus. Indeed, in early 2009, the government was told that it must spend more money on stimulus and go into deficit, since there was no way of spending more money when revenues were at the levels they were at then.

We were told we must do that as a condition of them not defeating us and replacing us as the government without an intervening election. That was the deal. While the budgets passed by our government in its minority period were not supported by the opposition, the opposition's criticism at the time was based on us not spending enough. We should be clear about that.

Now we are downsizing, or one might say re-sizing, from that expenditure. I am not a Keynesian. I do not think that is the appropriate way of dealing with a financial downturn. However, if one does believe in Keynesianism, as the opposition does and indeed many colleagues on this side do as well, then this is what Keynesians do when an economy is not contracting but expanding. They cut spending, do not increase taxes and try to build up the financial work chest that may be needed for some future financial crisis. It is at times of financial crisis when the economy is contracting that a government engages in stimulus spending. This is part of that cycle.

As I said, I am not a Keynesian, but I do believe in the part about trying to keep government spending reasonable and under control. I also believe in the general approach the government has adopted, which is making small adjustments here and there across that vast scale of government expenditures, rather than simply making radical, dramatic cuts.

That approach has been tried. Indeed, it was tried by the Chrétien government and by Paul Martin when he was finance minister back in the mid 1990s. I remember the budget of 1995 very well. I was a staffer on Parliament Hill at the time. Canada had a very substantial deficit at the time. We were heading into a situation where we could potentially face a lenders' strike. The government's response was to cut spending, which I applaud.

The way it cut spending was not approved of by the former Reform Party and PCs, and that was to cut transfers to provinces radically. It left all federal spending on direct expenditures intact, which was politically sensitive, but it cut radically on the transfers to the provinces. This had the effect of nailing the provinces on their primary expenditures: health care and education. These are the two areas that Canadians consistently indicate are the most important areas of spending to them. That had a very serious negative impact on the provinces.

Our government has tried to avoid harming transfers to the provinces. A very stable foundation of funding, both for equalization and for direct health care transfers has now been secured several years into the future. The adjustments that are being made are to direct federal expenditures. These are, naturally, very many because there are so many different areas in which our government engages in spending. There is everything from soup to nuts, from national defence to protecting the environment. It covers a lot of ground.

Much of that spending is non-discretionary. It is put in place by statute, which means the statutes must be adjusted. The example I just gave of the Judges Act is a typical example of the kinds of adjustments that are made to a statutory expenditure requirement. We have to go through and deal with it in detail. It takes up space and inevitably creates a substantial bill.

Frankly, that is why we needed to have more than one budget implementation bill. We had one in the spring and as promised one in the autumn to deal with that very substantial amount of work and to give the time in the intervening period for the kind of work that requires detailed thought on the part of ministers to achieve the goal of having reasonable expenditure adjustments that do not cause harm to the interests of Canadians.

I have just one last example. It involves my own constituency. As all good MPs do, I want to wrap things up by talking about my own constituency.

One area of cuts that we faced was an adjustment to the canals budget of Parks Canada, which is administered through the ministry of the environment. It had an overall adjustment to its budget downwards of $29 million, of which $2 million would affect the Rideau Canal system. It is Ontario's only world heritage site and an area of considerable cultural and recreational importance.

The initial approach adopted by Parks Canada was to try to achieve at least part of that cut by reducing the season. When that met with concerns, the minister intervened personally. A number of MPs drew this concern to his attention. That included MPs from more than one party because the canal flows through both Conservative and Liberal-held ridings, and I think even an NDP-held riding.

The result was that reasonable changes were made to ensure the season could remain its full length. The part of the budget that was most important to local Canadians was respected. The result is a change that saves money and at the same time allows for a reasonable and intelligent expenditure of those funds.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the hon. member who just concluded his speech is as frustrated as we are to see his time limited to 10 minutes, as he would have liked to say even more good things about this budget. Our position is the complete opposite. We are concerned because we believe that the Conservatives will be saddling future generations with the greatest economic, social and ecological debt ever.

I would like my colleague to answer this question: how can a government that wants to create jobs and prosperity reach these goals by bringing forward an austerity budget? Great Britain tried that approach, and analysts now find that the recession is continuing.

Can he demonstrate, in just a few seconds, that this austerity budget will really get us out of the recession?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if we go into the future and continue to build up a very substantial national debt, we must remember that every year's deficit gets added to the national debt. We cannot keep doing that year after year, as we did during the first years of the recession. From a purely economic point of view, the recession is actually over in Canada. It continues to exist elsewhere.

If we had gone on and continued to build the national debt, which I think would be the inevitable result if the NDP were actually carrying out what they proposed, the result would be a massive debt faced in the future by people like myself when we retire and by our children when they enter the workforce. That, when it is put in combination with the very substantial obligations that we face paying old age security, Canada pension plan and the very substantial health benefits that will go to seniors, would have the effect of creating an unsustainable burden on taxpayers.

In the end, services including life-saving services such as health care would inevitably be cut. Pensions might very well be cut in practice, if not nominally, through the government inflating its way out. I think that is the solution many European countries will adopt and it is a very unwise solution.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly give accolades to my colleague. It should be noted that I am very familiar with my colleague as we are in adjoining ridings. I not only see his contribution nationally and internationally through all of his good work, but I consistently see the results he delivers for his riding. I am honoured to have him as a colleague and to work with him for the benefit of our communities.

The member made one particular comment that I wonder if could expand on. He mentioned Keynesian economics. Keynesian economics, as we all know, is very simple. It is called “spend, spend, spend”. It is about how fast people can spend themselves out of a problem. In reality we all know it does not and has not worked. For the official opposition, I suppose that would be in the top ranks of its philosophy, tax and spend, tax and spend. The leader of the third party was with a government that adopted that in Ontario to the highest degree.

Perhaps the hon. member could give us some history on the effects of Keynesian economics and tell us how dastardly that would unfold for Canada?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the current leader of the Liberal Party did indeed try practising this kind of economics with disastrous results in Ontario. The father of the future leader of the Liberal Party did the same thing federally. We had to suffer years of deficits as a result of that.

Theoretical Keynesian economics, as written by Lord Keynes, was a system in which governments would spend substantially, run deficits in hard times, and then would run substantial surpluses and collect the funds necessary for the next crisis in good times.

That is not the way it works in reality. The incentive for politicians to spend more and not raise taxes, at all times, results in impractical Keynesian economics. It results in the kind of stagflation that has large deficits that are dealt with through inflation, which destroys growth prospects as we saw in the 1970s.

I would very much like to say that, as a rule, it should be avoided and we should simply try to practice good housekeeping at all times.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada has to create a climate that encourages investment and innovation, a stable, predictable economic climate that inspires confidence in entrepreneurs and will enable us to stimulate innovation. We have to create good, high value-added jobs and develop our vast natural resources responsibly to create a more prosperous, greener and more just society. To do that, we have to provide competent management of the economy and government.

Whether the issue is the criteria that guide the review of takeovers of our natural resources or the budget implementation act, the government is sowing uncertainty and doubt where predictability should prevail. The private sector is now used to receiving an annual budget in March that does not even bother to announce the actual initiatives the government intends to bring in. For the rest of the year, we get three omnibus bills that are unrelated to the budget document, into which the government tosses all its dirty laundry and the bills it does not have the courage to defend in the House of Commons, let alone before parliamentary committees. This is not a climate that inspires confidence.

In this monstrosity of a bill, which is even bigger than the budget was, the opposition is particularly concerned about the nearly $500 million cut to support for research and development in the private sector. Cuts to scientific research and experimental development tax credits are of particular concern to the private sector. These arbitrary cuts exacerbate the problems our manufacturing sector is already suffering, fragile as it is as a result of our high dollar. They threaten the climate of certainty that encourages investment and good job creation in Canada, in Quebec and in my riding, LaSalle—Émard, where manufacturing is an important economic activity.

The budget reduces the 20% general R and D tax credit to 15% for the big corporations that do most of the R and D in Canada.

In a letter to the Minister of Finance, the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters wrote:

The reduction of the ITC rate will impact the ability of Canadian divisions of multinational corporations to attract global R and D mandates in Canada and will require Canadian headquartered companies to examine outsourcing R and D as a more cost-effective way of driving innovation and productivity....Unfortunately, the signal that the proposed SR&ED changes send are two-fold: (1) Canada does not value or welcome large R and D mandates; and, (2) companies with large R and D projects should look elsewhere in the future. Large R and D projects, affiliated with existing manufacturing operations, are the prime driver of innovation and commercialization in Canada. While it is true that many enterprises will continue to invest in R and D, the proposed changes to the SR&ED program mean that those investments are much less likely to be placed in Canada.

The government has also cut the payroll expenses that companies can claim instead of making detailed claims by 10%. But what is of greater concern is that the government has decided to reduce the tax credit for eligible capital expenditures.

On this last point, the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters told the Minister of Finance:

Eliminating capital expenditures from eligible expenses will significantly and negatively impact the largest users of SR&ED – Canada's manufacturing sector – which is much more capital intensive than other sectors...it will have a much broader impact on the ability to retain and attract investment in Canada. Some manufacturers may continue to invest in R and D and carry additional costs, other companies will simply move the R and D to other jurisdictions where overall R and D costs are lower, providing a greater return on these investments. This will further undermine Canada’s innovation and commercialization performance.

This is extremely alarming, coming from the association representing a sector that employees nearly two million Canadians and generates $166 billion or 14% of our GDP. The manufacturing sector also does 45% of R&D in Canada and employs nearly 6,000 people in my riding, La Salle—Émard.

The artificially high value of our dollar is hurting our exports and our manufacturing sector. Quebec lost 70,000 jobs in the first three months of 2012, 8,000 of which were in the manufacturing sector.

Over the last decade, the share that the Canadian manufacturing sector contributes to our country's GDP has fallen by 2%. That decline has been felt especially in the lumber and pulp and paper processing industry, but also in the fishing industry. Between 2002 and 2011, the value of Canadian exports produced by the manufacturing sector fell by $20 billion. We are paying the price for a dollar that is too high.

The ill-conceived cuts to R&D tax credits will also be a drain on the profitability and competitiveness of the aerospace industry, an industry that is of vital importance to metropolitan Montreal and to Quebec. R&D cycles in that industry are counted not in months and years, but in decades.

The costs are astronomical, the financial risk is high, competition is fierce, and the margin of error is zero. This sector must be able to rely on financial certainty and long-term federal assistance. Federal tax credits for research and development are the only federal instrument that can provide this long-term certainty.

I spent the last few weeks of the summer visiting aerospace facilities in the Montreal area. In Quebec alone, the aerospace industry employs over 70,000 workers and provides economic spinoffs worth nearly $20 billion. This is no reason to rest on our laurels. The aerospace sector is rapidly developing in emerging economies. In Canada, in Quebec, our industry has reached a crossroads and needs leadership.

We must be able to provide financial certainty through government programs that support research and development in order to create greener, quieter devices. We need to introduce tools that help businesses put their ideas to the test before they reach the marketing stage, so that we can finally bridge the “valley of death”.

We must ensure that businesses operating in Canada enjoy the same opportunities as their foreign competitors in terms of federal procurement programs and calls for tenders.

While I may have jumped ahead of the release of the Emerson report on the future of the aerospace industry and begun a direct dialogue with businesses in that sector, I did so because the NDP is an engaged partner, one that listens. Once again, what we are hearing is that the industry is looking for partners, certainty and a long-term vision for our economy.

The Conservatives have reinvested only part of the savings from the scientific research and experimental development program in direct support programs. Entrepreneurs are being shortchanged $400 million. This is bad for innovation and bad for the economy.

Canadian manufacturers are saying that the government underestimated the cost to businesses by $250 million. The scientific research and experimental development program, or SR&ED, is an important tool in the planning of major sectors of our economy. Once again, the Conservatives are not fostering a predictable climate for R&D investments. This is bad for our economy.

The NDP supports sustainable economic development that is built on the creation of skilled, value-added jobs and the responsible development of our natural resources. Together, we can create a more prosperous, greener and more just society for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that I am deeply disappointed that we are being muzzled. This shows, unfortunately, how spineless the government is. I congratulate my colleague from LaSalle—Émard for her speech and for her endless dedication to hounding the Minister of Industry for all his shortcomings and inadequacies.

I used to sit on the Standing Committee on International Trade, where I witnessed how incredibly naive the government can be when it comes to fostering Canada's competitiveness and its ability to achieve its rightful place in international trade.

I would like to talk about research and development. Could my colleague tell us about the ridiculous waste of funding, from public funds and other sources? Could she tell us about the results Canada's research and development community is expected to deliver? According to some studies, results in that area are truly dismal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

We see that expectations related to research and development are complex and ongoing. It is important to realize that we should not stop investing in research and development when the economy is fragile. But that is exactly what the government is doing now. It takes pride in talking about innovation, but it is withdrawing from research and development. I find that very unfortunate.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour and privilege for me to rise in the House and speak about jobs and growth as they relate to our budget 2012. Bill C-45 is a continuation of our road map for economic success.

Canada leads the way as a stable financial leader, one of the strongest among the G7. Canada is a better place to do business. In fact, it is outperforming the United States and most countries around the world. Our lower taxes make it possible for businesses to create jobs, especially in these difficult times.

Speaking of creating jobs, the budget measures being debated this week do just that. Our government intends to renew the hiring credit through the act for yet another year. As I heard from business owners in my riding, the hiring credit is very important for job creation. However, the opposition does not support our budget and would therefore vote against this important hiring credit, which has helped local businesses in my riding of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell and a total of 534,000 employers across Canada last year.

Budget 2012 and the hiring credit rewards those who create jobs. That is particularly important in a rural riding such as mine. If we want people to move their families into rural areas and to remain in rural areas, we must ensure that there are existing jobs and, of course, many new jobs.

Often, people forget that farms are important businesses in the rural areas. In my rural riding, we have a high volume of agricultural businesses. I have heard from the farming community that the hiring credit is particularly good news for farm operations that are looking to expand.

Everyone knows how essential stable businesses are to the prosperity of both urban and rural communities. Not only are they a source of income for Canadian workers, they also deliver indispensable products and services which, in turn, fuel economic growth. What is more, they ensure workers can feed their families.

With budget 2012, the Conservative government continues to support families and small businesses. The extension of the hiring credit is only the tip of the iceberg. Indeed, our budget contains several more measures to help taxpayers save money. I sincerely hope opposition members will acknowledge the benefits our budget has in store for ordinary Canadians.

One important measure in Bill C-45 that will help Canadians save for retirement is the implementation of a tax framework for pooled registered pension plans.

Conservatives are committed to helping Canadians save for their retirement, especially Canadians who do not have access to pension plans. Our framework provides a viable retirement savings option for those Canadians who currently do not have access to a workplace pension plan.

Pension plans are an important investment for Canadians to have, and they deserve quality options like the pooled registered pension plan when it comes to saving for the future. This is one of the many reasons the opposition should be supporting Bill C-45.

We also want to support Canadians with severe disabilities and their families by improving the registered disability savings plan. The RDSP is widely regarded as a major policy innovation and positive development in helping to ensure the long-term financial security of children with severe disabilities. It is an initiative delivered by our Conservative government.

The improvements in our budget are the result of extensive consultation with Canadians. Consultations were held with representatives of disability groups, financial institutions, and provincial and territorial governments, including public guardians and trustees. Based on their feedback, a number of positive changes are being proposed that would improve the current system for families with members with disabilities.

Many of us know the great physical, emotional and financial toll that living with a disability can have on families, as they struggle to make their homes and their environment safer and more accessible and to build a better future for themselves. Financial assistance is crucial to them. Our support reflects the government's understanding of the needs of Canadians living with disabilities.

Tax reductions reward Canadians for realizing their full potential and give individuals and families the flexibility to make the choices that are right for them. I must point out that this has been a strong trend within our Conservative government.

In total, our government has introduced more than 140 tax relief measures since 2006. As a result, the average family of four in Canada is saving more than $3,100 per year in taxes. Seniors and pensioners are receiving about $2.5 billion in targeted tax relief for 2012-13 fiscal year. Due to the measures taken since 2006, more than one million low-income Canadians, including about 380,000 seniors, have been removed from the tax rolls as of 2012. The federal tax burden for all Canadians is now the lowest it has been in 50 years.

It is through the implementation of further measures included in our jobs and growth act that we would keep taxes low for families and individuals. I would simply must point out here that in the House we are the only party that advocates for low taxes for Canadians.

As the parliamentary secretary for agriculture, I regularly sit down with farmers from across Canada.

Since 2006, the Conservative government has been working hard on behalf of farmers. Thanks to the hard work and diligent efforts of the Minister of Agriculture, the Canadian agricultural sector is now much stronger, which has greatly benefited farmers.

As parliamentary secretary and as a member of Parliament representing a riding that has many farmers, I have seen with my own two eyes the results of Conservative agricultural programs over the past six years. In our 2012 budget, we will certainly continue to support farmers.

Our government was elected by farmers on a platform to modernize the grain sector in Canada and to keep our economy strong. We have brought in marketing freedom. The next step is to renew the Grain Commission. This has not been done in 40 years. Now, it is definitely time to remove the red tape and unnecessary expenses for our farmers. The changes in the act would eliminate about $20 million in unnecessary costs from the grain handling system, costs that are ultimately passed down to farmers.

Our Conservative government is doing everything it can to reduce costs for all Canadians. For instance, although it was supposed to be debated this week, along with all the other great measures in our jobs and growth act, the changes that we proposed to our MP pension plan have already passed with the support of all parties.

I will take this opportunity to highlight the importance of the approved changes for the Canadian taxpayer, as these are part of our 2012 budget.

It is worth noting that Canadians know the importance of living within their means and that they expect the government MPs and public servants to do the same. That is why the government is committed to managing public finances in a sustainable and responsible way and why we are willing to set an example.

In this five-year period, the portion of premiums paid by the members will go from 14% to 50%, on a 50:50 cost-sharing basis. This means that, come 2017, the premiums paid by members into their pension plans will rise to over $38,000, from $11,000.

This will result in significant savings for taxpayers. What is more, as we all know, the age at which plan members can begin to collect a full pension will also be raised, from age 55 to age 65, beginning in 2016.

This is good news for taxpayers, as we have all agreed.

In addition, public service employees will go from paying 37% of their pensions to 50% by 2017. The age of retirement for new federal workers will also increase, from 60 to 65 years of age. These important changes will not only ensure that the public sector and MPs are paying their fair share, but will also result in billions of dollars in savings. By 2017, the changes to MP pensions and the 420,000 strong public sector pension regime will bring total cumulative savings of $2.6 billion in taxpayer dollars.

I urge the opposition to view the other budget measures that we have drafted with as much energy and support as they did for the changes to the pension plans.

We need to keep our country on the right track of full economic recovery, and that is what our budget would do.

In summary, the budget is great news for my constituents. It is great news for all Canadians. It is a clear road map for economic success. Making decisions during challenging economic times involves making tough choices. I can assure members that our decisions are carefully considered and carefully made, with the priorities and the well-being of Canadians at the forefront.

I urge the opposition to stop playing games with Canadians and the economy and to support the swift passage of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for the riding neighbouring mine talked about businesses and farmers. He will know that when budgets are tabled in the House, businesses look eagerly at them to see an economy's direction.

Earlier today, my NDP colleague mentioned about $500 billion in debt money that was not being invested. The October 6 issue of The Economist said that the government's focus on one sector of natural resources, oil and gas in particular, had caused investors to invest in storage and transport rather than machinery and equipment, which could lead to productivity gains.

Growth is slowing. We are 152nd. We in the NDP proposed that small businesses have a 9% tax rate. The Conservatives have not gone far enough. They have only lowered it to 11% for small businesses. The uncertainty being proposed by the Conservatives is causing investors not to know where to put their money. It is causing oil and gas companies to have problems promoting their projects because we have reduced regulatory burden.

As the member will know, the number nine pipeline passes across his territory. With uncertainty in this market, how will the member's citizens know that the government is overseeing this project properly and how will investors know where to invest their money with this sort of convoluted budget that has been created?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting question because it ignores the fact that right now Canada has one of the strongest economies in the world. This is recognized by countries around the world.

The member is asking for lower tax rates. That is exactly what we did in previous budgets. We lowered the business tax rate for small, medium and large businesses. The member and his party voted against all of that. They also voted against tax savings for Canadians, seniors, children involved in sports and the list could go on.

Our businesses are contributing to the healthy economy in Canada and although the economy is strong, it can be affected by external forces. I will conclude with some proof of how our businesses are helping our economy. Over 800,000 net new jobs have been created in Canada since 2009 and that is attribute to our economic policies and to the businesses that hire Canadians.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech and I have read the budget and the budget implementation act. What seems to be missing is a promise from the 2008 Conservative platform. On page 23 of this platform, it says, “A re-elected Conservative Government led by Stephen Harper will prevent any company from exporting raw bitumen”.

Could the member tell us if we might be—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I go to the parliamentary secretary, I just remind all hon. members not to use the names of other members in the chamber, even if they are quoting.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, I remind the House and Canadians that the member and his party voted against that budget. That budget passed with no thanks to the opposition.

That budget played a key role in the economic strength Canada enjoys today, and I think Canadians see that. Although they are optimistic about Canada's economy and its strength, they know we can be affected by what goes on in other countries. The budget bill in front of the House right now would be another step in the right direction toward fortifying our economy in Canada. I just wish the member and his colleagues would vote in favour of these economic policies that would make Canada even stronger.

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

Mr. Speaker, to win without risk is to triumph without glory. I am beginning with this saying as it will be the theme for my speech about the budget implementation bill.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer clearly said that this bill would be a step backwards in terms of employment: 43,000 jobs would be lost. Imagine. We are applying the brakes again to our economy, making it more fragile and endangering it. This is very important, because the 43,000 jobs that are being lost are primarily in the area of direct services to Canadians.

As members of this House—and it is certainly the case of my colleagues in the government—we see every day in our offices an absence of and a reduction in access to services to the public. It has come to the point where someone who does not have Internet access and who ultimately does not have much tax-related expertise, for instance, is literally being abandoned and held hostage by the incredible restrictions imposed on our public servants. These restrictions mean that someone who wants to understand what will happen when he tries to file his income tax return will probably never have an answer, unless he calls on a professional whose services he must pay for or, in a best-case scenario, a close relative. In both cases, that person will give an opinion, but mistakes may be made because it is always difficult to keep up to date when it comes to taxes. Therefore, it is always best to check the source, but the source has dried up: the tap has been turned off by the government.

We are talking about high-quality jobs. We are talking about jobs serving the public. I find it absolutely shocking to see the government taking these sorts of workforce reductions so lightly.

I would like to point out that in Beauport—Limoilou, we have had a disaster. A large pulp and paper mill that had 1,600 employees in 2003 has allowed a foreign investor, through Canada's lax legislation and regulations, to liquidate most of its expertise and production capacity for its own benefit. There are currently fewer than 300 employees in the mill. Retirees are losing some of the funds they contributed over 30 or 35 years. How can this abandonment be explained? What does this mean? It is just one of many signs that our economy is living on borrowed time, that things are going wrong, and that problems are piling up.

My esteemed colleague from Vaudreuil—Soulanges spoke just now of the $500 billion accumulated by our businesses. This cannot be blamed on our entrepreneurs; it is a sign that they are proceeding with caution because they are worried about the future.

There have been so many gratuitous attacks that we might even call it a disease. This $500 billion is a very clear sign of this government's poor decision-making. The government is just aimlessly stumbling along. Moreover, the government is shutting its eyes and is wilfully blind to anything other than its own ideas, which it implements without verification or validation.

Another aspect of Bill C-45 is quite shocking. I only have a little part of it, by the way, because it was impossible to staple all the pages together. When you take a look at the summaries, you see that a number of sections of the bill have absolutely nothing to do with a budget or with the budget put forward by the Minister of Finance.

We might wonder what division 9 of part 4 is doing in this bill, since it amends the Judges Act. We might also talk about division 13 of part 4, which amends the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act to transfer it to the Department of Health. Division 16 of part 4 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. This is unbelievable. A lot has also been said about the provisions of division 18 of part 4, which amends the Navigable Waters Protection Act, given that it has environmental repercussions, which the government denies, of course. Government members are not content to fling gratuitous insults at us; now they want to alter reality and are refusing to face facts.

I will use an image to illustrate the extent of the government’s bad faith and desire to drag Canadian society down into mediocrity. Bill C-45 looks a little bit like this situation. I will play the role of a rather outrageous husband who, in a single fiscal year, demands that his wife agree to a new marriage contract, a will, a contract for cable, telephone and Internet, and terms requiring that she take out the garbage and empty the cat litter. Then I tell her not to complain. All she has to do is say whether she agrees to the contract, yes or no. If she says no, she is really acting in bad faith. It is truly appalling, because she is against emptying the cat litter. She wants to leave the cat in its feces. How horrible.

That is exactly what this government is imposing on all of the legitimate representatives in the House: a fool’s bargain, something made up out of whole cloth to try to get the upper hand. It is really a hugely mediocre thing to do. It is a terribly easy victory that this government is going after. I do not know what part of the public it will be able to look to for admiration for this scheme. I find it truly appalling.

Some speakers on the other side have praised the merits of the budget. What is very interesting is that on our side, we could easily support several aspects of it or agree to look at them seriously in co-operation with the government. But when it comes to the question of seriousness, do not get me started. Seeing the Conservatives laugh every time they are asked serious questions about our constituents’ futures, we realize that the only thing they take seriously is their own behinds. Impenetrable darkness is the refuge of the weak.

My first election campaign was in 2006, in the greater Quebec City region, specifically on the south shore of Quebec City. From that first campaign, I remember five visits by the Prime Minister. He presented himself in a very favourable light, playing the good, responsible father. There was absolutely nothing threatening about him, and he made promises. He sang the same tune on all of these occasions, and one of the things he called for was transparency and accountability. He did not blush as he shamelessly sang his own praises on that score. I really do not understand why, because if we look at the track record of this government, which has been in power for almost seven years, we see that it is truly mediocre.

What is interesting is that if the government continues to carry on this way, showing contempt for most of the public, it will be leaving future generations with a state of affairs that will be very hard to fix. It is absolutely not too late to extend a hand to the opposition and agree to what it has courteously offered: to split this bill and engage in a truly democratic process that is transparent, open, and most importantly courageous.

I call on all government members to do this and I ask that at long last, they show some courage.

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

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the official opposition pointed out that “[the Conservatives] are saddling future generations with the biggest environmental, economic and social debt in our history“.

Bill C-45 is a glaring example. As my colleague mentioned, this budget slashes services to Canadians. We are creating a society where the gap between rich and poor keeps growing, a society where many will be left behind.

I would like my colleague to elaborate further on that issue. I would appreciate hearing his comments on my humble thoughts.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from LaSalle—Émard for her question.

I am going to give a lesson in economics and another in morals while I am at it. When I hear this nonsense about John Maynard Keynes, I realize that many people just accept what they are told without learning the facts.

In economics, it is very important to consider all costs when we want to understand the consequences of certain actions. We can choose to internalize the costs and thus to take into account the economic, social and other costs.

Take, for example, the case of the Stadacona plant. When we let a supposed investor devastate an industry such as this, there are tremendous consequences. The local community loses a great deal of money while, in this case, a New York multi-billionaire rakes in the cash while watching his horses in a polo match.

We have a magnificent caucus with a great number of young members who have their future ahead of them. If we blindly and wilfully refuse to internalize environmental costs, these young people will be footing a very expensive bill. That is very troubling for them.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I took great interest in the member's response. I find it ironic that somebody from the NDP would use the words “morale”, “consequence” and “business” in the same response. Two words: carbon tax. Let us apply it to those three words.

What does the member have to say about the morale of Canadians, wanting them to reach into their pockets and take $21.5 billion? What is the consequence going to be on Canadians and their bottom line? What does he think the world of business thinks about this $21.5 billion carbon tax being applied in Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for asking the question, and because I am a Catholic and a believer, I will take a Judeo-Christian approach and continue to give a lesson in morals.

Canada does not operate in a vacuum. It is but one country in a world of nations. While my colleague chooses to remain completely blind, refuses to consider the reality of climate change and accuses us of being so evil—when all we want is to set a price for carbon, which the Prime Minister has considered—and while the Conservatives stick their heads in the sand, Canada is marginalizing itself and becoming a bum, while possibly racking up a bill that will go way over the $21 billion, which seem so high.

I have a question for my hon. colleague. When our entrepreneurs go to Europe, Asia, Africa and the rest of the Americas and start having doors slammed in their faces, what is he going to say to those entrepreneurs and all the workers who will lose their jobs because of this government's laissez-faire approach? It is appalling.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the good and wise people of Ottawa—Orléans, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-45, the jobs and growth act, 2012.

Since our election 2,469 days ago, this government has made job creation, growth and economic prosperity its top priorities. This is increasingly true in this 41st Parliament. Despite a weak and uncertain global economy and a sluggish recovery, 820,000 new jobs have been created in Canada since July 2009.

While the government has produced excellent results in terms of job creation and the economy, there is still much work to be done.

Bill C-45 will help us to continue the success and enable Canada to remain a global economic leader. While the government focuses on a plan to promote job creation through competitive taxes, the opposition is dreaming up schemes for higher taxation, as I mentioned in this House nine days ago. For instance, there is a carbon tax on everything, and taking $21 billion out of the pockets of hard-working Canadian taxpayers.

Speaking of lower taxes from this side, this government has offered tax relief in 140 instances since 2006, and has reduced rates for people in the lowest tax brackets in particular.

That is how you help an entire country come out of a recession. The jobs and growth act, 2012, would stimulate the Canadian economy and create even more jobs. How? By extending the hiring credit for small business for another year. Small businesses are economic drivers for Canada and also for Ottawa–Orléans. Last year, this credit helped some 534,000 Canadians.

In Orléans, businesses, such as the very meticulous Sure Print can receive a hiring credit of up to $1,000. Other measures will foster a healthy climate for job creation. They include promoting interprovincial trade, improving the legislative framework for Canada's financial institutions, facilitating cross-border travel, removing red tape and reducing fees for Canada's grain farmers and supporting the country's commercial aviation sector.

In recent months, shortly before the government released its economic action plan 2012, scaremongers tried to stir up public fears about the government’s proposed changes to Canada's pension plans.

Earlier this year, on January 9, I wrote to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board, stating the following:

In my view, it would be fair to change the benefits offered to our public servants yet to be hired. On the other hand, it would be wrong to change the conditions of employment retroactively. It certainly would be wrong to reduce the benefits of people who are already retired.

In his reply, which is available at my constituency office, the Prime Minister made it very clear, when he wrote in his own hand:

[First name of member for Ottawa-Orléans], I agree with you. No changes can be made retroactively.

That reply shows the wisdom and statesmanship of this Prime Minister. He has kept his word. In fact, the only person who will be subject to retroactive reductions to his pension is the Prime Minister himself. This is yet another demonstration of his selflessness in the service of Canadians.

The government has taken landmark action to ensure that the pension plans for members of this House and of the other place and federal public servants are sustainable and financially responsible. These plans will be consistent with the pension products offered by other jurisdictions and will be fair relative to plans offered in the private sector.

Bill C-45 would amend the Public Service Superannuation Act so that contributors would pay no more than 50% of the current service costs of the pension plan, by 2017. In addition, as of 2015, people entering the public service and future parliamentarians would be eligible for their pension at age 65 rather than the current age of 55.

Through changes to the pension plans for federal public servants and parliamentarians, the Government of Canada estimates it will save $2.6 billion over five years. That is a significant amount.

Let us remember, like the old age security program, there will be no retroactive changes to the Public Service Superannuation Act. None.

I personally intervened and the government has listened.

The members of this House are leading by example. It is our duty to do so.

On another subject, the government is focused on the needs of families.

Bill C-45 would improve the registered disability savings plan and help some of the most vulnerable people in society. As of January 1, 2014, the income from a registered education savings plan for a child with a disability could be rolled over to a registered disability savings plan if the child has a severe and prolonged mental impairment and would likely be unable to pursue post-secondary studies. This initiative would offer more flexibility and options to families with a disabled child.

As I am sure members know, children’s health is a subject close to my heart. On September 19, I introduced Motion M-319, which the House unanimously approved. The motion encouraged the government to continue promoting healthy food choices among children as a way to address the serious issue of childhood obesity.

The economic action plan 2012 proposes measures that support M-319.

It promotes a more active lifestyle for young people by continuing to support ParticipACTION. This valuable organization works with provincial partners to provide community-based health and fitness programs.

This is just one of the many initiatives the government has introduced since 2006, such as the children's fitness tax credit and the children's arts tax credit, which I had promoted.

Seniors play an important role in the lives of families and the Orléans community. A visit to places such as the Regroupement des aînés francophones d’Orléans, the Roy G. Hobbs Seniors Centre or Royal Garden will show how much seniors have to offer.

Since 2006, the government has provided solid support to seniors through $2.5 billion in tax relief. In addition, 380,000 seniors no longer pay federal income tax. The government has also introduced pension income splitting. I worked closely with my colleagues on this issue.

The economic action plan 2012 also supports seniors through the third quarter project, an initiative program that lets employers benefit from the experience of workers aged 50 and over who want to apply their skills in the labour market. With Ottawa's relatively no unemployment rate, employers can have a tough time finding employees with the right skills. Third quarter, which has received $6 million in funding, can help companies here and across Canada find the people they need.

I see the signal that my time is running out. However, there is so much that this budget document is presenting. There are no surprises there. These are the issues that we fought the last election on. These are the issues that we voted on, hours upon hours, last June. We are getting the job done.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member opposite say there was so much in the budget that is good. Why are the Conservatives cutting debate on the budget, if it is so good? I think they are cutting debate on the budget because there is so much that is not very good in the budget that they are afraid to talk about it.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the hon. member is wasting his time making things up. What he should explain is his plan to impose a $21.5 billion carbon tax.

It is right there, on page 4 of their program, the program they fought on. That is why they are stuck there in the opposition. The program we fought on actually resulted in the budget that was approved in the House last June. That is where we are marching on.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I was glad to hear from the member for Ottawa—Orléans, in both his speech and the response he just gave in respect to the $21.5 billion carbon tax that the NDP would like to implement.

I found his speech rather interesting, in the way he intertwined the importance of the national perspective that this economic plan, this strategy, will have on the rest of the country. He intertwined how the benefits were going to impact Ottawa-Orléans. I would like to ask him further how the benefits in the budget are going to impact the people of his community that he represents?

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Ottawa—Orléans is a pretty fortunate riding. We have one of the highest levels of income and education in Canada. People in Ottawa—Orléans like to do their part and get involved. My riding also has one of the highest rates of volunteerism.

In fact, I remember that a municipality in Alberta came to study how volunteering worked in my riding. In a few weeks, I will have the opportunity to present the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medals. We received 487 applications and they were all valid. This shows just how involved everyone is.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have discovered a measure in Bill C-45 that I cannot figure out with respect to how it would help jobs, growth and the economy, so perhaps the hon. member can help me.

It would create a whole new barrier to tourism in Canada. It would require an electronic verification of anyone coming from a country that does not require a visa from the Government of Canada before he or she can come for a visit. It does not include people who are claiming refugee status, nor those wanting permanent residency. Any traveller wanting to visit Canada, such as a British doctor who has always dreamed of crossing Canada by rail, would first have to clear an online questioning system and find out from the Minister of Immigration if he or she is admissible.

How does this help tourism, which includes jobs?

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, job creation is very important to this country. The fact is that the proof is in the pudding. Since the depth of the recession we have created over 820,000 new jobs.

Quite frankly, with respect to security measures, when people cross the border into Canada, I would approve any measure that brings more safety to our country and our citizens.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca is rising on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I would like to seek unanimous consent to move the following motion: that notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, clauses 264 to 268, related to changes to the Customs Act, be removed from Bill C-45, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, and do compose Bill C-47; that Bill C-47 be entitled “An Act to amend the Customs Act”; that Bill C-47 be deemed read a first time and printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security; that Bill C-45 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order; that Bill C-45 be reprinted as amended; and that the law clerk and parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.

We are proposing the motion in order to make sure that the government's proposal to implement electronic travel authorization gets the full consideration it should have. The government has proposed that parts of the bill go to committee but not be amended or voted upon separately. Therefore, this motion aims to correct that gap to allow for full debate and full consideration by providing a separate bill on this important matter.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

There is no unanimous consent.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kings—Hants.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-45, the second budget implementation act. This is yet another massive omnibus budget bill, which is 414 pages in length with 516 separate clauses amending more than 60 different laws. It is simply too big for Parliament to consider properly in just a short period of time. The Conservatives are counting on us rushing this through at record speed and they are trying to avoid real scrutiny in this Parliament.

The Conservatives are continuing their reckless abuse of power by using these huge omnibus bills and underhanded procedural manoeuvres to force unpopular policies through. They are doing this despite public outcry from coast to coast to coast. They are using this so-called budget bill to gut the Navigable Waters Protection Act, redefine aboriginal fisheries and amend the Indian Act without consulting first nation communities, despite the government's constitutional responsibility and duty to consult. They are using this so-called budget act to shield the government from lawsuits by creating loopholes in Canada's environmental laws and retroactively changing the Customs Act. They are eliminating the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission and implementing an overhaul of the Canadian Grain Commission.

These are just a few examples of elements of the bill that are significant and have nothing to do with the fiscal policy of the government, which is actually what a budget and a budget implementation act ought to be focused on. The Conservatives are rushing through these changes so that Canadians will not realize what has happened until it is too late. They have established a pattern of overwhelming our democratic system with overloaded budget bills that have nothing or little to do with the actual budgets themselves.

Buried in these massive bills are a number of mistakes. In fact, the Conservatives are already using Bill C-45 to correct mistakes they made in Bill C-38 last spring. The mistakes range from poorly written transition provisions in the new environmental assessment law to reinserting protections in the Fisheries Act that were mistakenly or inadvertently erased, to clarifying rules for approving foreign investments in our banks. These were mistakes in Bill C-38 in the spring. They slipped through the cracks because they were in a huge omnibus bill that denied Parliament the opportunity to thoroughly study and more importantly, not just to study but ultimately to vote on these changes individually.

Now the Conservatives want to fix some of these mistakes with measures in yet another omnibus budget bill that they want to rush into law. In this budget implementation bill the Conservatives are breaking promises made in budget 2012. The Conservatives want to use Bill C-45 to take public policy decisions that are contrary to what was in the budget in 2012. It is a farce when the Conservatives say that everything in Bill C-45 can be found in the budget. The reality is that some of what is in the legislation is completely opposite to what was promised in the budget of 2012.

Page 146 of the budget states that “[O]ver the next few years, the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board...will continue to set the rate” for EI premiums. However, Bill C-45 explicitly gets rid of the board's authority to set EI rates.

Here is another example. Page 268 of the budget keeps the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission, but Bill C-45 actually eliminates the commission altogether. We all remember how earlier this year the Conservatives broke their promise not to cut old age security.

It is also important to realize what is not in Bill C-45. Despite the size and breadth of this omnibus budget bill and the promises it breaks, Bill C-45 is remarkable as well for what it does not address. There is nothing in the bill to address some of the most serious challenges facing Canada. Canadians have identified growing income inequality as one of the biggest challenges facing the country, but there is nothing in Bill C-45 to address growing income gaps. There is nothing in Bill C-45 to address growing gaps between the provinces.

Canada's resource-driven recovery has increased, in fact, inequality among the regions in many ways. While it is positive that we have all of these natural resources, they are largely concentrated in a couple of provinces and the gap between those provinces in a resource-driven recovery and the other provinces is growing. I will give an example.

A province like Alberta is increasing education spending dramatically and I commend it for doing that. Investing in education is a good thing. At the same time, Nova Scotia's provincial government is cutting funding for public education by 30%. Therefore, it is not just a question of income inequality, it is a question of equality of opportunity. This is where we need a robust federal government that is working with the provinces, meeting with the provinces and ensuring that we do not see today's income inequality become tomorrow's inequality of opportunity.

This growing divide between the provinces is a major issue in Canada. In the last 12 months, over 40% of Canada's new full-time jobs were in just three provinces: Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador. These are the provinces with the greatest wealth of natural resources. It is where we can find 40% of the new jobs, but only 15% of the population. Provinces without resources are losing workers and being forced to slash funding for social programs. These are the programs that ensure equality of opportunity for the next generation.

There was a time when the Prime Minister said he would meet regularly with the premiers to discuss these types of issues. There was a time that ministers of intergovernmental affairs were senior members of the cabinet. People like the right hon. Joe Clark served as an intergovernmental affairs minister in the Mulroney government. Lucienne Robillard was a former minister in the provincial government in Quebec. The member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, a very senior expert on intergovernmental and constitutional affairs, was a minister of intergovernmental affairs.

Under the Conservatives, the minister of intergovernmental affairs is, effectively, a minister without portfolio. The minister of intergovernmental affairs does not have any standing in the Conservative government. That is not purely a reflection of the current minister, it is a reflection of an attitude toward the provinces that pervades the government.

The Prime Minister's refusal to meet with the premiers, his my way or the highway approach, has created a vacuum of federal leadership on these issues. Now we have a budget bill with no serious plan to work with the provinces on programs that would deal with issues such as income inequality and the growing inequality of opportunity, programs like a national early learning strategy or a national lifelong skills development strategy or federal leadership in working with the provinces to restore the honour of skilled trades, which is something that is incredibly important in Canada at a time when we have people without jobs and jobs without people.

Despite the uncertainty of the economy and the enormity of the challenges we face as a nation, there is precious little in Bill C-45 to help create jobs for today and jobs for the future. In fact, the spring budget bill actually made income inequality worse with cuts to OAS and EI. Bill C-45 would actually cut the very programs that encourage job creation and help our economy grow. It would cut SR&ED tax credits.

We have heard from industry, the science community, the biotech community and the manufacturers that the SR&ED program is important. The government would actually cut it. It would kill the corporate mineral exploration and development tax credits, which is dangerously short-sighted at a time when it is difficult for the mining and junior mining industries to raise money.

It also would kill the Atlantic investment tax credit for oil, gas and mining at a time when the Atlantic Canadian economy is still facing significant challenges. It would do nothing to address Canada's dangerously high levels of household debt. The fact is that for every $1 of annual income, Canadian families have $1.63 of household debt.

There is nothing to address these major and important issues that are actually related to the fiscal priorities of Canadians in the budget bill. Instead, the Conservatives are addressing a lot of other issues that have nothing to do with the fiscal reality of the country or the fiscal priorities of the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech. I know he has been following the budget file very closely. I would like him to tell us about the long-term consequences of the bill. The government often speaks of short-term consequences. Indeed, short-sightedness is often politics' great weakness.

I would like the member to tell us about the long-term consequences of the budget, beyond 2015.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question. I fear the Conservative budget and policies will exacerbate inequality among Canadians in the long term. Family income is not the only issue. It is vital to acknowledge the growing inequality of opportunities among provinces and between urban and rural areas.

But the Conservatives do not believe that to be important. I agree with Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of Canada, who said inequality is a very important issue in Canada. We ought to deal with it because, in the future, it will be increasingly difficult for people to live with such inequality. We ought to act now, but the Conservative government is completely ignoring the problem.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am always caught up in a discussion between the Liberals and the NDP on the whole idea of revenue from taxpayers. Could the member perhaps give some advice to the NDP?

In a previous session Canadians got a serious case of election indigestion with the proposed $15 billion carbon tax. Now the official opposition has changed it and has proposed a $21 billion carbon tax. I am sure the member kept that out of his speech because that is not included in our low-tax plan.

What is his advice or post-mortem going to be since he could not move any further to the left physically in the House of Commons after the carbon tax proposal in the last election? What advice does he have for the opposition? I will let them talk among themselves.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member sought my advice and so I will give it to him.

My advice would be that the hon. member go to the website of the Department of the Environment and go back to 2008 where the Conservative government promised to do exactly what the New Democrat platform promised to do, which was to bring in a cap and trade system to Canada.

My advice for those Conservative members is to realize that before the NDP ever put a cap and trade system in its platform, Conservative government policy was to have a cap and trade system. However, the Conservatives did not call it “a carbon tax on everything”; they called it a “cap and trade system”.

I say it is on their website, but there is probably some 19-year-old pimply-faced fellow in the basement of Conservative Party headquarters working on taking that off right now. Some guy who just put down his Hayek books is rushing to the computer to try to eliminate the fact that the Conservatives had a big fat carbon tax on everything. That was Conservative policy. That is where the NDP picked it up.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, other nations have defined themselves by race and ethnicity. Not us. As former prime minister Laurier said, “Canada is free and freedom is its [only] nationality”. Over a century that freedom has allowed us to build the best place in the world in which to live, work and raise a family.

My purpose in this place has been to help make Canada the freest country in the world, where people are free to succeed and free to take responsibility for their own lives. Toward that goal, government should only do the things that people cannot do for themselves. It should do those things well and it should leave the rest to free people to do on their own.

This budget moves toward that principle and the best example of how is the changes it would make to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The purpose of that act was to protect navigation. That purpose includes allowing boats and bridges to coexist on shared waters. It ensures that if I build a bridge, it does not obstruct other people's ability to run their boats down the river. That is a role that citizens cannot govern on their own and therefore government has a legitimate role to play in doing it.

This act was written over 130 years ago, at a time when people actually travelled to work by canoe. Someone reminded me recently that the last Canadian to travel to work by canoe was Pierre Trudeau. However, now we live in a different time and over the course of time, this act's tentacles have extended beyond its usefulness. It now applies to hundreds of tiny building projects that could never obstruct a boat, often on waterways where boats never travel in the first place. It literally extends to all waters in Canada that can float a canoe, including some brooks and streams that are only full for a few weeks during spring run-off.

For example, the city of Moncton applied to build a culvert under the highway in Fox Creek, which is so small as to be practically unusable. This act and the approvals it requires delayed that construction for eight months and resulted in extra costs to Moncton taxpayers.

In Alberta, 80 cottagers on Lake Wabamum waited for as long as a year and a half for Transport Canada to approve small docks along the water's edge. We are talking about simple docks, the kind that every Canadian kid has run 10 steps off and jumped into the lake.

In these cases, the delays had nothing to do with environmental precautions. The act does not even mention the word “environment” once. These delays were designed to ensure that the little cottage docks in Alberta and the tiny culvert in Moncton would not block shipping vessels from travelling down a waterway.

Such delays are not only unnecessary, they take time from citizens, money from taxpayers and public servants away from doing their real jobs. Focusing the act on its real purpose will liberate entrepreneurs, property owners and taxpayers from mindless red tape, while other acts that actually deal with the environment will continue to protect nature. It will help create a system of governance in our country that is lean and smart, not fat and dumb.

It is in instances like this that I am reminded of the example set for us by some of our ancestors in this part of the country, one of them being D. Aubrey Moodie who just recently passed away at age 99. The founder of the township of Nepean and its former reeve, he set the gold standard for common-sense government that maximized the freedom of its local citizenry.

I am reminded of the story of Jack May who started an auto dealership on Highway 16 in Nepean in 1965. The reason he started it there was because he had spent six months fighting delays and red tape on the other side of the river in Gloucester. After his frustration had reached a boiling point, he crossed the river and he showed up on the reeve's doorstep Sunday morning. He got Aubrey Moodie out of bed while the reeve was still wearing his pyjamas. They sat down and over coffee and breakfast he told the reeve he wanted to start an auto dealership in the community.

The next night, a few officials from the city and one or two lawyers from Jack May's business sat down over dinner and worked out the plans. Tuesday morning, 48 hours after he had first met with the reeve, the shovel was in the ground and the dealership was under construction. Forty-seven years later, that same dealership is creating jobs, growth and long-term prosperity right in the heart of my community.

I share this story because it demonstrates that the obstacles of government can block our ability to achieve our full potential and that a common-sense, lean-focused government can allow that potential to be unleashed once more.

In this place, because it is a place of politics and government, we often forget the necessity to remain humble in recognition that it is in fact the individual and the industry of Canada that creates the wealth of the land.

Anyone who doubts the power of the individual in a free society need only reflect upon the story of the airplane.

If we had asked anyone, at the beginning of the 20th century, who would invent the first heavier than air manpowered aircraft, we would have heard one name, Samuel Pierpont Langley. He was a senior secretary at the Smithsonian Institution, a brilliant scientist, a regular at the White House, best friends with Alexander Graham Bell, who had invented the telephone and the recipient of the largest research grant in the history of the U.S. War Department, at the time $50,000 or $1.3 million in today's terms.

However, best of all for him his only competition were a couple of middle-class brothers from Ohio, the Wright brothers. They had no contacts in government and therefore no government funds. They raised all their money through their bicycle repair shop. They had no post-secondary education. All their higher learning came from their father's modest home library. They had no expectation of success. This was really a case of the Wrights versus might.

What happened? Langley spent his considerable sums on staff, advisers, travelling the world, meeting with important people, giving speeches and developing theories.

The Wrights, by contrast, developed their theories by watching birds, particularly gulls, in flight. They took these lessons and tested them in their homemade wind tunnel, which they built out of a wooden box with a gas-powered fan because they did not have electricity in their shed. They tested tiny airplanes to develop their theories, which they then ran in their life-sized gliders. One brother would be in the glider and the other would run alongside.

In December 1903, Langley launched his aircraft of the Potomac River near Washington, the capital of government. It shot straight up in the air and back down into the water, where it sunk to the bottom and lodged in mud. He gave up and declared his life a failure.

A week later the Wright brothers launched their aircraft. It, too, crashed, but they did not give up. In the next 48 hours, they rebuilt and launched the first ever manpowered aircraft in the history of humankind.

This is the story of the individual over the institution, of citizen over state, of practicality over pontification, of the Wrights over might.

Since the birth of humankind, we have gazed up at the birds in a spirit of envy.

In this magical story of entrepreneurship, these brothers of modest means did what the mighty state could not: give man wings and make him fly.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech, even though I am still trying to understand some things about the bill.

The finance minister said that everything in Bill C-45 can be found in the budget.

When we received the information on this bill—and there has been a lot of publicity on this issue—we asked where in the budget the references to navigable waters could be found. We were told to refer to page 282 of the budget, which indicates that $37 million in savings have been planned at Transport Canada.

From this, we were supposed to understand what our colleague was explaining to us about all the advantages and effects of this bill. But, on the contrary, what we are seeing are the negative effects it will have on environmental protection.

Can the hon. member tell me where in the budget we can find an explanation for everything he has said about our waterways?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is an act concerning jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. When we have an act in place that prevents municipalities from carrying out basic local infrastructure construction in order to determine whether a shipping vessel can travel down a tiny ditch, then we obstruct the creation of jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. We are removing unnecessary bureaucratic red tape that prevents entrepreneurs, like the one I mentioned, from creating the prosperity of the land.

That is the difference between us and the other side. We understand that every dollar the government spends must come out of the pockets of the person who earned it. We can lower those costs. We can leave the dollars in the pockets of the entrepreneurs of our country and they will create the jobs, the growth and the prosperity that we seek.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 1:30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from October 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, the official opposition, to oppose yet another omnibus bill put forward by the government. It is a travesty when it comes to respecting not only the priorities of Canadians, but the kind of value that Canadians give to democracy, democratic debate and the roles of members of Parliament in the House. It is though the government had not learned from what we saw in the spring, the kind of opposition we saw from coast to coast to coast from Canadians on Bill C-38, the first omnibus bill in recent months that the government put forward.

We saw historic opposition on the kind of deregulation put forward in the environment, the damaging portions to do with pensions, specifically with respect to the OAS, the damage made by changes to employment insurance and the list goes on. Overall it was a budget bill that raised the ire of Canadians who did not send their members of Parliament, certainly the government members of Parliament in the House, to shove through legislation that would essentially decrease our standard of living. Yet, here we are again seeing the same kind of tricks being played by a government that truly is prepared to show contempt for democratic debate and the role we have been sent here to do.

I am proud to be part of the NDP, a party that not only has the word “democratic” in its name, but a party that believes debate and representing Canadians, which is what we have been sent here to do, rather than telling people stories of what they are supposedly doing in the House. The real story is one that is rather devastating.

Bill C-45 is another massive omnibus bill that makes amendments to a wide range of acts. Once again, the Conservatives are trying to ram legislation through Parliament, without allowing Canadians and members of Parliament to thoroughly examine it. The Conservatives claim that budget 2012 is about job creation, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer says that this budget will cost 43,000 Canadian jobs. That is not job creation; that is a massive bleeding of good, solid Canadian jobs that the government is enforcing through this budget bill.

The budget plans for unemployment to rise. As we know, the National Capital Region has been hit disproportionately hard given the massive cuts to the public sector. However, the region in the part of the country that I come from, Manitoba and the Prairies, has been the single most effected region, outside of the National Capital Region, when it comes to cuts to the public service, whether it is the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, which has been hit hard, or it is a number of other departments that have been affected. The domino effect is the lose of good, solid jobs for our communities.

While Canadians want us to take action to protect our environment and grow a sustainable economy for the future, the Conservatives are focused on gutting environmental protection regulation. We saw that in Bill C-38. We very clearly see it again in Bill C-45 through the changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act and a massive disconnect on the part of the government.

Canadians view environmental sustainability as being key to the way we move forward. We used to be recognized as leaders and a country that sought to find a balance between economic development and environmental sustainability. Now we are seen as a global shame because of the kind of policies the Prime Minister and his government have put forward. Not only have they gone as far as failing to move forward on environmental stewardship inaction, but they have also gutted legislation that is absolutely key to ensuring that the kind of development that takes place across our country is done within parameters that support environmental sustainability.

Churchill, in northern Manitoba, is part of a province that depends a great deal on the wealth that comes from waterways, whether it is rivers or lakes. Seeing the changes in the Navigable Waters Protection Act is damaging to the kind of development that Manitobans want, one that respect waterways, first nations and communities that are on or close to the water. Unfortunately, once again, the federal government will not stand up for the province of Manitoba and the many Canadians that want economic development to be done with a sustainable lens.

The Conservatives have clearly not learned their lesson and the official opposition will not let them quietly pass their new omnibus legislation. We believe Canadians deserve better. We in the NDP will always be proud to stand up for transparency and accountability. We will always stand up for environmental protection, retirement security and health care, which were key points that were attacked in Bill C-38 and continue to be attacked in the latest reincarnation of the Conservative government's sham representation of the interests of Canadians.

Let us look at Bill C-45 more closely. A key damaging point is the area of public pensions. New Democrats are concerned by the creation of a two-tiered workforce in which younger people have to work longer for the same retirement benefits. Those younger people are from my generation, a generation of people who go into workplaces. Hopefully a number of them will be able to work in the public service supporting the kinds of services and sectors we need in our country. Unfortunately, the bar has been raised for them in many ways and they will not have access to the same quality of life as their parents. That is what it is really about. A two-tiered system means that the people of my generation will be set up to live a life with greater job insecurity and a higher cost of living knowing that their retirement benefits will have been gutted, and that is not fair.

When Conservative members go back to their ridings, how do they make this kind of two-tiered workforce palatable to the young people who live in their constituencies, the next generation of Canadians who want to contribute to society, our communities and our economy? The reality is they will be unable to make the same kinds of long-term plans that they or certainly their parents have made because the odds have been stacked against them. It is particularly shameful that the odds have been stacked against them in large part due to the government's desire to make the playing field more difficult for us.

The changes in the public service pension system come in a context where the Conservative government is failing to take action on youth unemployment and crippling student debt, while also making young people work longer before qualifying for OAS benefits. We have a good idea what the actions the government is taking today will mean in terms of a reduced ability by Canadian young people to contribute to the economy, whether it is in the tax base, or purchasing homes and taking part in the homebuyers' market or consumption in the economy, which is something in which the government seems to be interested. We are going to see a marked reduction in the ability of future generations of Canadians to contribute to the economy.

A final point that I would like to make is with respect to my particular region and the devastating impact Bill C-45 will have when it comes to the Canadian Grain Commission. I am proud to represent the community of Churchill where hard-working people have worked for the CGC for decades and have ensured that Canadian wheat is the best in the world. Unfortunately, Bill C-45 weakens the Canada Grain Act, which means we will lose inward inspections, farmers will be faced with a reduced profit margin because of the fact that we will not have rigorous inspection of the wheat we export, as well as domestic consumption, and that is not okay.

Canada is proud of the kind of wheat products we have sold around the world. This means losing solid jobs from communities like Churchill, Thunder Bay and Vancouver, and it is certainly in line with the government's failure to realize it is here to show leadership. Thankfully, we in the NDP will continue to do that and fight against Bill C-45.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the region my hon. colleague represents in Thompson and Churchill is very much similar to mine in Timmins—James Bay, having some of the largest gold, copper and diamond operations in the world. Therefore, we understand the value of a resource-based economy. However, when I talk to citizens in my riding and they once again hear of the attack on the waterways, this continual undermining of basic environmental standards on the waterways, they become angry because we have seen the damage in our regions. We have seen the lakes and fish habitats that have been destroyed over the years.

I ask my hon. colleague this. While the rest of the world is moving toward a sustainable notion of treating our resources as value-added but also understanding the importance and protection of the environment, why is it that we have a government that seems to be in the process of high-grading our natural environment to get as much as it can as quickly as it can, leaving the toxic residues, which we have fought over the last 100 years in the north to stop from happening?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising what is really the story of our ridings and that of northern Canada.

We have a government that would leave a legacy of devastation, a legacy that is in complete disconnect with the priorities of northern Canadians. For us, certainly going back to first nations teachings, economic development means a true respect for the environment around us. Instead of making sure we have regulation that enforces that kind of respect and that we are going forward to make sure economic development happens responsibly, the government is like a wrecking crew. It is Canadians who would pay the price, predominantly Canadians who live in northern Canada. That is unacceptable. We know that the international community is certainly taking note of that. We see that more and more Canadians have had enough with the government's agenda.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what is proposed in Bill C-45 will create a two-tier system for pension plans, which is obviously going to affect young people significantly. There are also all sorts of measures that will undermine the protection of the environment.

The hon. member has already mentioned that this will greatly affect her generation. As our leader often says, we are passing on a debt burden to future generations, whether in the form of environmental debt, economic debt, and so on.

Could the hon. member tell us about the problems that this could create for young people, who already do not trust politicians? How will they be affected overall?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her very relevant question.

It is incredible to see that the government is so irresponsible that it ignores the devastating impact of this bill and of Bill C-38 on my generation.

The hon. member made a connection with young people's lack of confidence in politicians. It is true that they already do not have much trust. Fortunately, our caucus represents the youth of Canada, given its many young members of Parliament and the issues that they bring forward.

However, the fact remains that this government is shirking its major responsibility for our country's future.

We see that an entire generation will not have good pension plans, will not be able to afford the soaring costs of housing, for example, will not be able to pay off student debts and will not have access to good jobs in the public service or in general. This reality is scary, showing us an absolutely incredible side of the Government of Canada. Yet this government is supporting this reality instead of demonstrating a leadership role in building a better future for Canadians.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege and a delight to speak to Bill C-45, the final implementation of the budget act, the jobs and growth act. It is titled, “jobs, growth and long-term prosperity”. The reason we chose that title is that the focus of this bill is for just that: for long-term prosperity, for jobs and for growth.

We have heard the numbers countless times. On our side of the House, we are reminded that since this government has been in office and since that horrendous crash in 2008-09 when so many jobs were wiped out, not only here in Canada but across the world, there has been an increase of 820,000 net new jobs. That is an outstanding number.

We also hear the statistics that we rank among the highest in the G8 nations, that we are in the best fiscal position and that we are among the highest in growth in G8 nations.

That does not say there is tremendous growth. We know that in the world today there has been an enormous slowdown. Yet repeatedly, for the last number of years, Canada has managed to hold a position and to build some strength in that position, as well.

We also know that when governments get it right, when governments help create healthy climates, jobs are created. That is the main focus of this government and the reason we have focused so much on those areas. We do that by, first, listening.

I have the privilege to serve on the finance committee. We are involved in budget consultations at this point. We meet every night, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. We meet from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. We ask people and groups from right across this country to come in to speak to us and to tell us what they feel this government has to do to be successful, to grow those jobs, to get those people back to work, to help young Canadians who are coming out schools, be they high schools, colleges or universities, to get jobs. We listen to these groups and these people.

We listen to industry. Again, I was fortunate, in the first four years I served in this House, to serve on the industry committee. In the industry committee, again, we invite industry; we invite labour; we invite all these groups to tell us just what we can do as a government to make things work.

It is people who create jobs. It is businesses that create jobs. Governments create healthy atmospheres.

We listen to business groups, we listen to labour and we listen to the experts. We learned great lessons from the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington last Friday. He gave us a little essay in the house on Keynesian policies and how many governments today—most governments in the western world since before World War II—embarked upon that kind of plane where governments were told they need to spend to stimulate the economy. I think most of us would probably agree with that, but we have had a bit of runaway Keynesianism.

There was another school of thought at that time, the Austrian school, the Mises, that taught it is the responsibility of governments to maintain and make sure their books are in order. We did, and we do what the experts suggest we do. The first thing they tell us, repeatedly, is to get government spending under control, eliminate the deficit.

It is a fact that this government is concentrating on lowering government spending. We do not agree on both sides of the House. Often times, we hear it is the role of government to spend more, to spend our way out of a recession or that, rather than cut spending, maybe we ought to raise taxes.

We hear repeatedly, not just from businesses—obviously businesses do not want to be taxed and corporations do not want to be taxed—but we hear from the experts, the economists, that it works in reverse and ultimately when businesses and corporations are taxed, they take that cost and add it to the cost of products. Then we become uncompetitive in the world. Therefore, our goal on this side of the House is to make sure tax level does not become a burden and to make sure we do not impede growth.

One of the other things we heard repeatedly was to reduce red tape. Red tape is something that stagnates growth. It causes frustration in the marketplace. We have to eliminate those things that impede growth. I have spoken about a number of those areas, one of them being red tape. However, there are other things that governments do, oftentimes with the right intention, but we find out down the road that they cause more problems than they solve. Businesses asked that we not overburden them with taxes and regulations and that we open up the marketplace.

Canada is a trading nation. We are a nation that does a pretty good job at producing certain things. We are strong in extraction. We have a very rich resource sector. We are strong in service sectors, telecommunications and banking, and we do a good job in financing. We are able to export those to other countries. However, oftentimes there are trade barriers that pop up and make those things difficult for our companies. Therefore, our Minister of Trade has been extremely busy on a trade mission.

Let me read something he said:

In less than six years, [we have]...concluded trade agreements with nine countries: Colombia, Honduras, Jordan, Panama, Peru, and the European Free Trade Association member states of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. Canada has also begun deepening trade and investment ties with the largest markets in the world, including the European Union, India and Japan.

The European Union has 500 million people.

Most recently, we announced in October that Canada has formally joined the trans-Pacific partnership, the TPP trade negotiations. This is a trade agreement under negotiation by 11 countries, which now include Canada and Mexico. The other members include Australia, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam.

Canadians can see that we are opening up these opportunities. This gives our companies, our people, an opportunity.

The Speaker is telling me I am running out of time, so I am going to talk about what is really near and dear to me, and that is the bridge to strengthening trade act. We have inserted a provision in the omnibus bill that allows for a bridge across to the United States in my neck of the woods, Chatham-Kent—Essex. Why this is so important is that we are a trading nation. The town of Leamington, which is part of my riding, has an enormous greenhouse industry. Two hundred trucks leave Leamington greenhouses bound for the U.S. every day. More than 70% of the greenhouse industry goes to the United States. There are 223 greenhouse operations in Ontario, and Leamington is home to the largest concentration of greenhouses. There are over 1,500 acres under cover. They tell me that one acre is equal to ten times the production on normal land. It is imperative that those goods get across to the United States. We need that crossing. Therefore, we have put a provision in the budget that would allow for its speedy construction.

I was also very privileged to be able to announce the gateway, the section of HIghway 401 to the bridge. Last year in August the government announced we would spend $1 billion. A very important part of the budget is the trade issue. It is very important in my riding.

I encourage the opposition to look at those great benefits, not only for the country but for areas like Chatham-Kent—Essex, where it is so important that we continue this trade.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about job creation, which is at stake in Bill C-45. I would like to come back to that, because my colleague did not go into detail on the matter.

In the Auditor General's most recent report, we saw that the Minister of Finance's decisions were not backed by the figures in a report on long-term fiscal sustainability. In other words, the Minister of Finance is making decisions without truly knowing what impact these decisions will have on public finances over the long term, which is concerning.

I would like to know whether my colleague knows what long-term effects the elimination of tax credits for research and development will have, for example. In my riding, there is a company that just cut 300 jobs. This company was very active in research and development, which is why this question came to mind.

Does my colleague know the long-term effects of a decrease in tax credits for research and development? If so, what is he using to back his long-term predictions?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an area of real concern as well.

I have served on both the finance and the industry committee. One of the studies that was produced by the industry committee back in 2007 touched on those areas. The Liberals were in opposition at the time and the committee submitted an unanimous report to the House.

One of the areas of great concern is how we can best use research money and how to make that effective. This is a constant struggle. This is something that we as a government, and members on all sides of the House when we serve in committee, try to get right. The objective is to, first of all, have good research because we all benefit from good research. Second is to make sure that the research that is done will provide jobs. The result will be stronger economies. I think we are—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. I do not mean to cut the hon. member off but we have to leave enough time for other members to ask questions.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague from Chatham-Kent—Essex telling us how important it is for the economy to move that bridge forward in a timely way.

I would like to focus my question on the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which the opposition for some reason has tried to link to the environment. It is a 100-year-old piece of legislation that does not speak to the environment at all. It is really about navigation on our waterways.

Why is this another important feature of this budget implementation act and how will it help long-term growth and prosperity?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue serves on finance committee as well and she does an outstanding job.

Ten minutes goes by so quickly, but a point that I was trying to get to in my speech was that the navigable waters act is very important to my riding of Chatham-Kent—Essex, as it is I am sure in her riding as well. We have flat land in Chatham-Kent—Essex. It does not get any flatter and we have many drains and ditches. I am hearing from cities, townships and counties how the old law that the member referred to is making it difficult to put in things as simple as a culvert to cross a ditch.

We are doing things that need to be done. We are doing things that make sense. As a result, we should have a strong impact on our economy. That is precisely what we are trying to do with the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-45. I would like to open my remarks by joining those who spoke before me in saying that I do not agree with the way we are proceeding with Bill C-45, which is a mammoth omnibus bill. Call it what you will, but the fact remains that this bill is more than 400 pages long and has various parts dealing with different areas. Not only are we restricted to having only one debate, but we also have only one opportunity to vote on a massive bill containing a wide range of measures. For a party that boasted that it would be transparent and would stand up for democracy, this makes no sense. Frankly, we are wondering what has become of those lofty ideals today.

As a parliamentarian, I have to vote only once. This bill has some elements that I agree with and that I would be happy to vote in favour of. Unfortunately, it also has a number of incomplete and potentially harmful features that need major amendments or that should not be there in the first place. I am in a position where I have to vote for or against a wide range of measures and amendments. I think this way of doing things is neither transparent nor democratic.

A number of hon. members have asked us why we are complaining, because everything that is in Bill C-45 was already announced in the budget. I would like to set the record straight and say that that is not true. Not all the measures in Bill C-45 were in the budget. Let us stop lying to Canadians. That is shameful. For instance, one amendment in Bill C-45 has to do with the right of grain farmers to an appeal process. I did not find that in the main budget tabled last spring. The same goes for the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

There are things in Bill C-45 that were not clearly announced in the budget and that warrant careful consideration. Anytime we are faced with such an immense bill, there is always confusion and unexpected things.

The Liberals proposed removing the parts related to pensions from Bill C-45. If that proposal had been accepted, we would have voted in favour of the measure concerning members' pensions and the one concerning public service pensions and Canadian Forces members' pensions. With just one vote, and without any debate, we would have affected the pensions of over 450,000 Canadians.

Modifying people's pension plans without bothering to dedicate any time for consideration, debate or examination is such an insult. This shows a complete lack of respect and a negligent attitude toward democracy. The cavalier, disrespectful attitude this government is taking regarding such important issues for Canadians will undermine their confidence in our parliamentary system.

I would now like to take a closer look at one particular measure announced in Bill C-45: changing the eligibility age for public servants' retirement pensions. Anyone hired as of January 1, 2013, will receive his or her retirement pension at age 65 instead of 60. Five years is a long time; it is more than just a few weeks or a few months. This change is not really justified. The budget indicates that this measure is responsible and is important to ensuring the sustainability of the pension plan. However, those few words are by no means sufficient justification for making such a major change to the pension plan.

On what grounds is the viability of the program being determined? Perhaps there are reasonable grounds to believe the retirement age needs to be raised, but I doubt it. I will leave this open to discussion and debate. The government cannot simply declare that the viability is at risk and the age must therefore be raised; that is not enough. I want to see some figures and some studies proving that the viability is at risk at this time. I can easily draw a comparison with the changes announced to old age security.

All kinds of non-partisan expert studies show that old age security in its present form, with 65 as the age of eligibility, is sustainable in the long term. Of course we do not need complex calculations to know that costs will rise as the population ages. Old age security, a public pension program, will cost more because the proportion of seniors will be greater. Does this mean that the program is not sustainable in the long term? Not at all. Just because it will cost more does not mean that we will absolutely not be able to cover the costs. Experts' in-depth long-term analyses take into account a number of factors and unanimously confirm that old age security with 65 as the age of eligibility is a program that we can afford to keep.

On a number of occasions, the opposition has asked—as the critic for seniors, I have asked dozens of times—for the figures, studies and reports on which the government bases its claim that the viability of old age security is in jeopardy. To date, I have not seen any valid proof, or anything to justify these changes. The recent Auditor General's report clearly states that some figures and studies could have been made public to provide some indication of and information about the real reasons for changing the eligibility age for our old age security program. No figure has been published even though, in 2007, the government promised to do so and, in 2011, the Auditor General recommended that the government once again publish a report on long-term fiscal sustainability.

Furthermore, we also learned from the Auditor General's most recent report, which was released last week, that the Minister of Finance does not necessarily have all the information on the long-term impact of his decisions. He makes the decisions and then is subsequently informed by the department of the long-term impact of the decisions. Quite frankly, there is cause to be suspicious of the reasons for the changes proposed by Bill C-45 and by the Conservatives' most recent budget.

That concludes my remarks on pensions affected by Bill C-45 and the budget. I would also like to talk about another aspect related to Canadians' savings and their financial security: pooled registered pension plans.

Many experts agree that pooled registered pension plans will not enhance Canadians' financial security; rather, they will undermine it. Yes, we can do something to protect retirees' financial security. We can take meaningful steps and we can do it now if possible. The government should not introduce another savings vehicle similar to RRSPs and TFSAs. Not everyone contributes to RRSPs and TFSAs, which are savings vehicles. A whole lot of people cannot put money aside for retirement.

What are the unique advantages of a pooled registered pension plan? It will give employers the opportunity to provide a so-called pension plan—merely “so-called” because a PRPP is not a pension plan; it is a savings plan—without having to commit to anything. Employers can set up a plan that employees may contribute to if they want, which is fine, but employers do not actually have to do anything. If employers are not interested in participating, they simply do not have to. That is not a solution.

Many experts say that we have to rethink our defined benefit pension plan and that we have to protect it. That is the only thing that will put Canadians in a position to save for their retirement and allow them to count on a set amount of money when they retire. Changes are in order if we want to improve these pension plans and keep them viable. But we have to be serious about making those changes.

I could go on at length about this, but I see that my time is almost up. Nobody can cover everything in a 400-page bill in 10 minutes.

In closing, I want to say that, if the Minister of Finance thinks that austerity is prudent, he should be careful, because people must not be led to believe that the cuts he has proposed are in any way necessary. This is nothing but political rhetoric and lies, if I may say so.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.

She spoke about old age security, which is a very important topic. She also mentioned the Auditor General's report. If I am not mistaken, this report compares the costs of maintaining the current system of retirement at the age of 65 to the costs of a system of retirement at the age of 67, as proposed by the government, which does not believe that the current system is sustainable. But the difference between the two systems represented 0.3% of the GDP. This certainly does not indicate that the current system is not viable.

Why does my colleague think that the government is telling us that the current system is not viable, when we are talking about a difference of only 0.3% of the GDP?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for picking up on what I spoke about earlier. I was saying that we can cope with Canada's aging population and maintain access to old age security at the age of 65.

Why do the Conservatives want to push that back to 67? That is an excellent question. If I knew what was going on in their heads, perhaps I would have the answer. If I had been given documents explaining why, perhaps I would have the answer.

No one can really understand why the government is pushing the age of eligibility for old age security back to 67. Why not 66 or 68? Why in 10 years? Why not in seven years? What effects will it have? And what costs will it transfer to the provinces?

Up until now, we do not have any of that information, which is completely unacceptable.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member comment on a couple of very important statistics?

The first is that Canada has the lowest debt to GDP ratio in G7 countries. It is predicted by the IMF to be a leader in the world economy over the next two years. Second, perhaps the hon. member could tell us the importance to her riding of the 820,000-some-odd jobs that have been created since Canada came out of the global economy recession in relatively good shape?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member offered up some figures, but I must point out that figures taken out of context mean nothing, because you can spin them however you want.

I could also cite the figure provided by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who said that the loss of tens of thousands of jobs in Canada was the result of austerity measures in the Conservatives' budget.

We can keep throwing figures back and forth. I think it is false to say that the Conservatives' cuts are necessary. We are constantly being told that if we do not make these cuts, we will incur all kinds of debt and the economy will suffer. Careful. This is the same government that is depriving the federal treasury of tens of billions of dollars in useless tax credits.

Let us put things back into perspective: cuts and the budget are a matter of choice; not a matter of obligation.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

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

She talked about respect, which is a fundamental theme. Parliament and Canadians need to be respected and they need to be informed about everything that is in Canada's budget.

In addition, as a result of this second omnibus bill, parliamentarians will surely not have enough time to talk about everything that is in the budget.

I want to ask about the impact that these changes to pensions in particular would have on young people. We have a change in pensions, going from 65 to 67, and in the public sector, from 60 to 65. It would mean for young people it would take longer to get into the market because they would have to work longer and work later in life as well.

Could my colleague give us her thoughts on the impact the budget would have on young people for decades to come?

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

Mr. Speaker, it will be difficult to give a short answer to such a question, but I will do my best.

Indeed, the current youth unemployment rate is alarming. And what does the budget propose to solve this problem? Nothing. Instead, the budget increases the retirement age of public sector workers from 60 to 65. This measure will clearly have an impact on young people and future generations. Decisions like that should not be made just to get re-elected, but rather based on the impact that they will have on future generations.

I have a word of advice for the government. Not only would publishing long-term fiscal sustainability reports help in making the right decisions, but it would also inform people of the impact of the decisions made.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to seek unanimous consent to move the following motion, and I know my colleagues will give that to me: That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, clauses 308 to 314 related to changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act be removed from Bill C-45, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures and do compose Bill C-47; that Bill C-47 be entitled “An act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act”; that Bill C-47 be deemed read a first time and be printed and that the order for the second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration; that Bill C-45 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order; that Bill C-45 be reprinted, as amended, and that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.

We propose the motion to give the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration an opportunity to ensure due diligence to examine and propose amendments.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. member for Newton—North Delta have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Lethbridge.

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on March 29, the Minister of Finance presented the 2012 budget, Canada's economic action plan for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. The budget was developed after extensive consultation with fellow MPs, department personnel, economists, business and community leaders and ordinary Canadians. It is not surprising that our Minister of Finance has been called the best finance minister in the world after the World Economic Forum rated Canada's performance as the best among G8 economies in the midst of a global crisis.

The overwhelming message I received from constituents throughout the year was, “Keep on keeping on. Your plan is working. Continue to keep taxes low, continue to reduce redundant red tape, continue to facilitate trade among the provinces and continue to open up new markets around the world”.

Albertans in particular support this disciplined and balanced approach to managing the country's economy. The vast majority of Canadians support our focus on substantial, responsible and necessary change, while taking advantage of global economic opportunities and ensuring sustainable social programs and sound public finances for future generations. However, the NDP does not support this.

As members may recall, shortly after the budget was announced, the NDP leader made headlines with his divisive comments of blaming Alberta's successful energy-based economy for the downsizing of the manufacturing-based economies in Quebec and Ontario. He also blamed the strong Canadian dollar, for which Alberta's booming economy is responsible, for the downturn in manufacturing. Prairie premiers and other western leaders were quick to reject his claims and he was even criticized by left-leaning eastern journalists who recognized his comments to be divisive and unsuitable for a national leader.

However, we have to hand it to the Leader of the Opposition, he does stick to his guns. Notwithstanding the public outcry, he has not backed down. In fact, he got bolder and even more bizarre. In a question period he went so far as to say:

—the Canadian dollar is being held artificially high, because they are failing to enforce environmental legislation....500,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs have been lost because we are not enforcing legislation. We are not enforcing the navigable waters act. We are not enforcing the migratory birds act. We are not enforcing the Fisheries Act.

Behold the NDP plan to revive the manufacturing sector: enforce the Migratory Birds Convention Act.

It is an unfortunate but acceptable consequence of environmental regulations that the economy should suffer. However, the NDP suggest that we impose environmental legislation, not to protect the environment, but to deliberately hurt the Alberta economy in particular and the Canadian economy in general.

Some people have said that it is disingenuous to suggest there are environmental restrictions which negatively impact the economy, while doing very little to actually protect the environment. This is not simply an accidental result of miscalculating the effects of well-intended policies. The Leader of the Opposition reveals that it is an intentional and integral part of the NDP environmental agenda.

The NDP wants to impose strict environmental restrictions upon the Alberta energy sector to significantly undermine its profitability and weaken the general economy. This would bring down the value of the Canadian dollar thereby making Canadian manufactured goods less expensive to foreign markets. Its bizarre economic philosophy suggests that we would all be better off if only the economy was not doing so well.

This line of thinking is not unique to its leader; it is typical NDP mentality. Nor is this philosophy and methodology new. When fighting against the implementation of the same socialist philosophy in the 1840s, Frédéric Bastiat pointed out that in order to gain power, “Ambitious hypocrites...planting the seeds of international discord in the mind of the public”. He stresses the importance of exposing the false assumptions upon which their economic theories are based. He says, “the public can be robbed only if it is first deceived...and we may be certain...every sophism is the precursor of an act of plunder”.

In other words, whenever we see a wonky argument for equalization that is superficially plausible but makes huge leaps and depends on false assumptions, hold on to our wallet.

Since our motive should be the welfare and prosperity of the country, no matter how politically incorrect they are, if the words of the NDP leader are right, we should swallow our pride and implement them. However, they are wrong and there are reasons much more important than scoring politically for pointing it out.

In politics, false assumptions are especially harmful because they mislead public opinion, and public opinion is the guiding force of public policy. If deception and false assumptions are the weapons of the plunderer, then the best shield for the public is correct understanding.

Pitting one region against another is not just politically incorrect, it also discourages inter-regional and inter-industry co-operation, harming national unity and stagnating economic growth for all regions in all industries.

The words of the leader of the official opposition are not just divisive. The belief that each region's gains depend on the losses of others not only destroys the economies of weaker regions but also eventually destroys the strong as well, just a parasite must perish after it has fully consumed its host.

The economy is not a zero sum game. If we are to prosper, it is important to understand that in a free market, it is the very nature of free economic exchanges that both parties gain and, in fact, that co-operation is more effective than competition. Supposing that a region cannot prosper in the absence of abundant natural resources without forced equalization weakens that region and stifles its creativity. The downturn in manufacturing was not caused by a strong dollar but was a natural correction in an artificially supported sector. The strong dollar is a reflection of a strong economy and a strong economy inspires confidence, encouraging outside investment and internal growth.

A lower loonie may increase demand for domestically manufactured goods, but increased demand would also increase their price for foreign markets and Canadians. Ironically, it would also lower the value of the dollar earned by people in the manufacturing sector. Also, the opposition's anti-oil, lower loonie plan would increase revenue for the oil companies too, since their prices are based on U.S. dollars. Therefore, we would end up shipping crude oil at a lower Canadian dollar price, only to have to import gasoline at high U.S. prices. Protectionists always seem to forget that the economy is not made up only of producers and sellers, but also includes consumers.

The economy of a country is not actually a race to the top where only one team can win. If we wanted to make sure that all of the runners crossed the finish line at the same time, it might make sense to place some artificial obstacles in the path of the fastest runners or to give slower runners a head start. A national economy is more like a team of mountain climbers working together to reach the summit. Would it make sense to put obstacles in the way of a climber with the best chance of getting to the top first if, from there, he could better assist those below? However, that is what the member for Outremont and his not-so-merry band of socialists want to do with respect to industry. They forget that the desired result is Canada's well-being, all of it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's comments in which he also mentioned environmental legislation. I would like to ask him a question about that with regard to Bill C-45. This is a continued theme in the current bill, as it was in Bill C-38, where there were significant cuts to the Fisheries Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

In Bill C-45, there are changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. In fact, the term “water” is dropped from the title of the act. In my riding, for instance, waterways, rivers, creeks and lakes, are held in high regard and people expect them to be managed properly. This requires protective measures, like the Navigable Waters Protection Act. In fact, my riding is nestled between the world-famous Fraser River, known for its history and salmon, and Burrard Inlet in Port Moody. There are many other important waterways I could talk about, like the Coquitlam River, the Burnett River and Comeau Creek.

Does the member honestly think that the Navigable Waters Protection Act is not assisting in the protection of our great country and, in fact, is—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. I am sorry to cut the hon. member off, but there needs to be time for other members who may wish to pose questions.

The hon. member for Lethbridge.

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my riding is in southern Alberta and is often plagued by drought, so we too love our waterways. The Navigable Waters Protection Act was designed to regulate navigation on navigable waters. The change in this bill brings it back to its original intent so that it will focus on navigation. It does not eliminate environmental controls or protections. Under the old Navigable Waters Protection Act, the ditches in a farmer's field, or the stream that runs through my town for instance, were controlled by the Navigable Waters Protection Act. This bill simply recognizes that these waterways are not major commercial navigation routes and do not need to be regulated by such an archaic act.

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

Mr. Speaker, as part of a debate, if a member can help explain a certain position, either one side or the other, it is of benefit.

The government has talked a great deal about the NDP proposal for a cap and trade system. We know that the Conservatives put forward a similar cap and trade proposal, placing a $65 per tonne fee on carbon.

Could the member take a couple of minutes to explain the difference between those two approaches? They seem very similar to me.

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the main difference is that the NDP wants a carbon tax, what it is calling a cap and trade system, and the Conservatives do not.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am so glad to have a chance to ask the hon. member for Lethbridge a question related to the constitutionality of what the government is doing. It is particularly fascinating to hear the Conservative benches railing on socialism while they embrace communism. I find it fascinating.

Meanwhile, I have a constitutional law textbook here that points out that the idea of what the Navigable Waters Protection Act was intended to do in 1882 is entirely irrelevant and fanciful. Professor Peter Hogg writes that it is well established “that the general language used to describe the classes of subjects is not frozen in the sense in which it would have been understood in 1867”.

However, the Conservatives' approach to Bill C-45, as with Bill C-38, is to slash back the evolution of our Constitution and to insist that if it were not in the minds of people in 1882, the idea that the Navigable Waters Protection Act should protect the environment more generally is somehow erroneous.

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not quite understand the point or the question.

The member's quote basically clarifies our position, that the Navigable Waters Protection Act has nothing to do with environmental protections. This is not a move against environmental protection; it is a move against useless regulations that neither protect the environment nor help the economy. That is all it is.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great honour that I rise on behalf of the constituents of Winnipeg South Centre to speak about the sound fiscal framework that our government has set out and continues to implement with economic action plan 2012. Our government is committed to ensuring prosperity for Canadians across the country both now and into the future. While economic action plan 2012 would create jobs and stimulate growth, it will also leave a foundation for long-term prosperity across Canada.

As a chartered accountant who values stable economic growth, this approach makes sense to me. As a mother who wants her children to grow up in a prosperous Canada, this approach means much to me.

Our government is focused on long-term financial security for Canadians. Economic action plan 2012 would deliver on this by providing new savings mechanisms while improving and strengthening the administration of existing programs.

I would like to take this opportunity to highlight what our government is doing to support families first, then financial industries and business.

With respect to families, following a review of the registered disability savings plans program in 2011, we have taken measures to improve its efficacy so that Canadians with disabilities and their families will also be able to save for the future. To this end, improvements to the disability tax credit would allow investment income to roll over from RESPs to RDSPs. It would maximize the savings potential of families where a member has a disability. All Canadians need to be sure that they and their loved ones are secure.

Consistent with our government's desire to help Canadians prepare for the future by creating savings mechanisms, we would amend the Income Tax Act to accommodate pooled registered pension plans. These plans would play a crucial role by giving Canadians without workplace pensions a plan to contribute to. This option would be particularly attractive to the self-employed and small businesses. Our changes to the Income Tax Act would allow Canadians to take full advantage of this low-cost highly accessible savings option.

Along with its provincial and territorial counterparts, the Department of Finance has just completed a triennial review of the Canada pension plan and has confirmed that the plan is sustainable for the next 75 years. This means that Canadians can be confident knowing that their public pension will be there for them without having to raise their contributions.

Economic action plan 2012 would make important changes that would boost the authority of the Pension Appeals Board, and the review and social security tribunals. Our government believes that a healthy CPP is a solid foundation for the retirement savings of Canadians.

Just as Canadians make retirement savings a priority, our government believes that members of Parliament should do the same. That is why it has introduced legislation that would make MP pensions more consistent with other pensions. These changes would include increasing the contribution percentage of MPs to 50% so that the costs are shared on a 50-50 basis and raising the without-penalty retirement age from 55 to 65. These changes would save hard-working Canadians $2.6 billion over the next five years.

As servants of the public, MP pensions should be consistent with that of other Canadians. Our government firmly believes this and the economic action plan delivers on that.

Our government is also committed to public sector accountability as it pertains to collective bargaining. At present, the Canada Revenue Agency has the authority to formulate its own collective bargaining mandates and enters into negotiations without approval of the Governor in Council, an exceptional circumstance given that the vast majority of separate agencies are required to do so under section 112 of the Public Service Labour Relations Act. It is our government's intention to ensure that the CRA is also governed by that section. Moreover, we would amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act to ensure that the CRA obtains its collective bargaining mandate from the President of the Treasury Board.

Our government is serious about proper oversight of collective bargaining as it relates to the public service.

The health of Canada's financial system is crucial. It is a crucial determinant of long-term prosperity. A sound financial system with firm regulation and supervision has allowed Canada to emerge from the 2008 global financial crisis as a leader among its G8 partners.

In order to maintain our international reputation as a leader in financial sector regulation, our government is continuing to be proactive about making changes so that Canadians can have continued confidence in their financial institutions, and we are on the right track. This Canadian economy has created over 820,000 net new jobs since July 2009. A healthy financial sector is central to our government's commitment to economic growth and long-term prosperity. The amendments I have outlined would help. However, the global economy remains fragile and we have to know that our major trading partners, the Canada-Europe trading connection and the Canada-U.S. trading connection, remain fragile.

I also have the pleasure of speaking about what we are doing for the business community because a hospitable business climate is a very important element for promoting economic growth and long-term prosperity. Our government is taking very seriously our responsibility to consult with businesses and stakeholders, and to see how government could assist them in growing and creating jobs for Canadians. As a chartered accountant, I know how important it is for our government to be responsive to the concerns of business.

We just celebrated Small Business Week in Canada and I will highlight what our government is doing to help small businesses. A 2010 report from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business suggested that red tape at all levels of government costs business about $30.5 billion extra every year. This burden is felt disproportionately by small business owners. The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants used the opportunity of Small Business Week to remind government that “[r]edundant and inefficient reporting and collection of information places a considerable burden on small businesses and other organizations”.

The CICA asked government to deliver on the goal of red tape reduction. Our government listened to the CICA and small businesses and is delivering on red tape reduction in economic action plan 2012. Our government believes that providing Canadians and businesses with the tools to grow and save is the best way to ensure future prosperity. Canadians want to be assured that their finances are secure, not just now but long into the future for the next generation of Canadians.

Our government is working very hard to support the economy with positive, pro-growth measures in economic action plan 2012. One example of this is the job-creating hiring credit for small business, which I am very proud to see in this document.

To create a prosperous Canada of tomorrow, our government is acting today. We are doing that by increasing the savings options available to Canadians, ensuring the health of our financial sector in order to maintain Canadians' confidence in it and creating an environment in which small businesses can and will thrive. We have demonstrated that with 820,000 net new jobs since July 2009.

I am grateful to have had the opportunity to highlight key aspects of economic action plan 2012 and what our government is doing to create jobs, ensure growth and provide long-term prosperity for Canadians.

It is very important for us to be able to create jobs now, not only to ensure and target economic growth, but also to ensure long-term prosperity for our generation and all future generations.

As a chartered accountant and as a mother, I am proud of our government's efforts to ensure long-term prosperity for all generations to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pursue with my hon. friend the matter that I tried to pursue with the previous speech from the member from her caucus, which was to explain the constitutionality of basically the abandonment of navigation under the federal head of power in the Constitution. I hope it will not be unfair to my friend but I think she was present when we were discussing this.

Constitutional law, as I recited from Professor Peter Hogg who is the leading expert, requires that we look at the Constitution not based on what people designed things for in the 1860s but as they evolve. As Lord Sankey wrote in a decision of the high court in 1930, the BNA Act is like a tree planted in Canada that grows and evolves. That means that the meaning of “navigation” and “navigable waters” have changed since 1867. For generations, they have always included that we protect free-flowing rivers in Canada.

When the federal government, through Bill C-45, retreats from this, it would be illegal for any other level of government to step in to protect rights of navigation on waterways throughout Canada. How do we square this circle of unconstitutionality?

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for that question, but I also want to advise her that my remarks in the House of Commons today focused on what the Government of Canada is doing for families, for the financial industry sector and for businesses. That was the focus of my remarks.

I might add that my government is succeeding with a contribution of 820,000 net new jobs since July 2009 because we focus on what we are talking about. We are talking about creating jobs. We are talking about creating growth and we are talking about prosperity, not just for us right now, because that is so comfortable, but for the generations that are going to follow us. That is focus and that is why it is succeeding.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre gave an excellent speech. In her opening remarks, she explained that she was a chartered accountant and also a mom, so she is used to balancing the books. She is used to watching the dollars, as most Canadian families do.

I want to ask her a question about the NDP's carbon tax. The NDP has been talking about this $21 billion tax. As members know the NDP is linked to the Broadbent Institute. It was really sad when, a while back, the Broadbent Institute said it wanted to increase green taxes, such as a carbon tax, and taxes on natural resources and more and more taxes, which could add up to over $30 billion.

I want to ask her this question, because she does have expertise in the financial sector. What would a $21 billion carbon tax, or the taxes with which the Broadbent Institute would like to shackle Canadians, do to the economy of Manitoba at this very important juncture in time?

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for that question and the insight that he shares with us. I was talking about how my government, of which I am very proud to be a part, is focused on helping children with disabilities become integrated into the saving framework so that their parents can save for their futures the same way we save with the rollover, which I specifically referenced, from RESPs to RDSPs. This is a classic example.

We are a government that is trying to help children with disabilities do well. The special needs children who I had the pleasure of serving when I was a school trustee had significant transportation requirements. With a carbon tax in place, every single element of their support system would cost more. It is not just the van to get the child to school. It is not just the van to get the child to community events. It is every single thing that the family has to buy, such as food, clothing, transportation, books, everything that matters to families.

That is why I am very proud that this economic action plan does not include a carbon tax. It is the antithesis. It is all about growth and supporting families.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me this morning to rise once again in the House to debate a 2012 budget implementation bill. This is the second round of debate on the 2012 budget. I would like to start by taking my colleagues back 20 years in time, to 1993 and 1994, when three events took place that I believe are relevant to the debate today in the House.

The first event was the election of a Liberal majority government headed by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, which set Canada, the state, the federal government, on the road to sound economic and fiscal management. The Liberal government bequeathed to the Conservative government a budget surplus that was extraordinary and unprecedented in Canada's history and that could have been used to maintain economic prosperity. In the end, that did not happen.

The second event occurred in the House of Commons before I was elected. However, I was on the Hill at the time. I remember the arrival of about 50 Reform members, including today's Prime Minister, who was the member for Calgary at the time. As I recall, he arrived in the House with 49 Reform Party colleagues.

The third event I will mention has to do with the Liberal government of the day, under Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. That government introduced Bill C-17, its budget implementation bill. I would like to remind the House of the length of that budget implementation bill. Mr. Speaker, you and my other colleagues in this House might be surprised to hear that, in total, Bill C-17 was 21 pages long and amended a total of 11 pieces of Canadian legislation.

Let us compare that to the current situation. Last fall, we debated a budget implementation bill that was about 500 pages long and amended about 70 pieces of Canadian legislation. Today we are debating Bill C-45, which is 443 pages long and amends 60 Canadian acts. In less than 12 months, we have debated two bills that together total about 900 pages and amend about 130 Canadian acts. We have come a long way since 1993.

What is interesting is that even the short, 21-page budget implementation bill that I just mentioned, that modest bill, triggered a strong reaction from the member from Calgary who is now the Prime Minister of Canada. He said, and I quote:

The particular bill before us, Bill C-17, is of an omnibus nature. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that you should rule it out of order and it should not be considered by the House in the form in which it has been presented....

I would argue that the subject matter of the bill is so diverse that a single vote on the content would put members in conflict with their own principles.

If people were outraged at the time, in 1994, regarding a budget implementation bill that was 21 pages long and amended 11 Canadian acts, well then they should be 45 times more outraged today.

What we have seen recently in the House is about 45 times worse than what went on in 1994 with Bill C-17. This should put things into perspective a little bit.

It is interesting that we heard the member opposite speak about family. That is an important point. It is important that every now and then we bring things back to the perspective of the communities and families we represent here in the House.

Sometimes things get a little too complicated here. They get too broad and complicated, layer upon layer, to the point where parliamentarians have a hard time seeing things clearly. Imagine how hard it is for our constituents, who are not engaged in this House every day, who are going about their business, earning their living, bringing up their kids, to wrap their minds around what is going on in this House, especially around a budget?

Let us look at what a family does when they create a budget. Let us say, hypothetically, that a family sits down, the parents and the kids, to discuss the family budget. What would they discuss? They would discuss the revenues they expect for the coming year, what they expect to spend and how they perhaps expect to lower their debt levels. That is what they need to talk about, if they are to have a good budget. If they start to talk about junior's hockey schedule or how much time the son or daughter should be allowed to watch TV per week, and so on and so forth, they would go astray from the subject at hand. They are not going to be as effective in managing the household economy essentially, the household budget.

I would suggest that the fact that we keep bringing in complex pieces of legislation, such as these two budget implementation acts, may be distracting the government's focus and not allowing it to be as effective as it might be.

I have seen two bills, which are unrelated to this bill, come before the House, and they had glaring holes in them. One was Bill C-383, and I do not understand how it got by the lawyers in the trade department, quite frankly. We saw another bill last week, the nuclear terrorism act, which my colleague said omitted a very important and central piece.

We should simplify things a bit and not spread ourselves too thinly, so that we can do our work properly as parliamentarians and the government can achieve some focus and get some results.

On that theme, the budget implementation act obviously does include measures which should be in a budget implementation act. That goes without saying. Even if we disagree with what the government is doing with the SR and ED, the scientific research and development tax credit, it belongs in a budget; it is a budgetary matter.

I would add that I think it may be dangerous that the government is getting away from a kind of broad-based program to stimulate innovation in this country in every small- and medium-sized business across the land, to an approach whereby the government would be giving subsidies instead of tax credits for research. It would be giving subsidies to a few bigger players in an attempt to pick winners and losers in the 21st century economy. We have issues with that, but I would agree that it belongs in a budget bill.

However, there are some things that do not belong in a budget bill. One is rewriting laws that protect Canada's waterways. I do not know what that is doing in a budget bill. Another is redefining the definition of aboriginal fisheries. What is that doing in a budget bill? Eliminating the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission is about human health and public safety. That is not about revenues and expenditures and debt levels and so on.

I have an issue, like many of my colleagues in the House, with the budget going astray and including all kinds of extraneous elements.

However, to get a subject that is of great interest to me, I would concur with my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands that when the Fisheries Act was passed and the Navigable Waters Protection Act was passed, the word “environment” did not exist. If we are to be literal, as the government likes to be, let us go back to the quote that I just read from the then Reform Party member and now Prime Minister, who said that 21 pages amending 11 acts is too long.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a real privilege to ask a question to the member. The constitutional questions have not had enough attention in this debate at second reading on Bill C-45. When I look back at Bill C-38, I think we also missed some of the key ones. However, in the Fisheries Act changes in Bill C-38, as egregious as they were, they did not, with a sweep of the pen, say that 98% of the waterways in this country are no longer going to be covered under the navigation head of power found in the Constitution.

Has my friend considered that this act is actually unconstitutional in retreating from 98% of the responsibilities to ensure that Canadians have the right to navigate? This was enshrined as a federal head of power. How can the Conservatives unilaterally walk away from it, knowing that under the exclusivity principles of the constitutional law it would be illegal for another level of government to step in to fill the void?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very interesting point. There was an article in Le Devoir last week about how there are laws at the provincial level, for example in Quebec, to protect the interests of boaters and so on, but in fact constitutionally they do not have the same authority. It is disturbing when a government takes away rights for Canadians that were established at the very beginning of Confederation without having any kind of public debate, other than on a budget bill.

I think this is a problem. I will leave it up to those who are more knowledgeable about the law than I am to delve into this issue, but it obviously merits discussion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and riding neighbour for his speech. I would like to ask him a question about pooled registered pension plans.

This is a measure that is found in Bill C-45. I admit that I am very concerned about this because, right now, retirement security is a big problem. It is time to take serious measures to improve retirees' financial security. The Conservatives' solution is to introduce a pooled registered pension plan.

Does the hon. member agree with Professor Milevsky from York University that a investment plan must not be confused with a pension plan and that one thing is certain: a PRPP, like an RRSP or a TFSA, is not a pension? What does the hon. member think?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, when it comes to investing, we have to put ourselves at the mercy of the markets to some extent. Sometimes things go well and sometimes they go less well.

It is not the same thing as counting on a guaranteed income at age 65, or now age 67. It is not the same thing as investing in an RRSP. Whether a person invests individually or with a group of colleagues, the level of risk is not the same. It is much greater than the risk for the federal government, which has a huge fund and can diversify the risk in order to promise Canadians a stable specific income in the future, while allowing them to know today the amount of income they will receive in 20 or 30 years.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned briefly that he thinks there is something missing in private member's Bill C-383. I am curious to know what he thinks is missing from that bill because I am looking forward to its passage to ban bulk water exports.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have been debating this at committee, and it is a sense that I have. I would like to hear more debate about it, but I fear the bill includes something that removes a protection that our freshwater might have. The fact that we have included the word “pipeline” and tried to say that a pipeline is a transboundary river may be problematic down the road. I do not know. However, a pipeline is not water in its natural state, and any bill that bans transboundary export via pipeline may be a trade bill.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to stand in the House today and speak about Bill C-45, the budget implementation bill.

Canada has been through some tough times since the great recession began in 2008, and we have fared incredibly well when compared to other industrialized nations around the world. We have the strongest growing economy, and it is due in no small way to the efforts of our Conservative government. Our economic action plan has and continues to ensure that the Canadian economy will remain robust and prepared to fend off most risks.

I want to thank the Minister of Finance, our Prime Minister and all of my caucus colleagues for their hard work. I ask the members on the other side of the House to consider this bill very carefully, and I ask for their support.

It is important to keep our fragile economy running smoothly, and this bill supports jobs and growth to do just that. This is good legislation for all Canadians. It is also good for my home province of Alberta and my riding of Medicine Hat. It contains support for farmers. There are many in my region who I am proud to represent here. I would also like to add that many of them are prospering at historic levels now that they have the freedom to market their grain to whomever they choose. I am happy to report that fact to the House.

This bill is good for farmers. It is good for small business owners. It is good for families and seniors. It is good for the middle class. I do not understand how the opposition members have committed to voting against it. I do realize it is an attempt on their part to simply obstruct everything that we do. This is the NDP's game plan, and it has not even tried to hide that strategy.

Our government has been committed to the economy in other ways, such as by helping to keep the corporate tax low, which in turn has created over 820,000 new jobs since July 2009, shortly after the global economic downturn began. That is an incredible statistic when we stop to think about it.

Nevertheless, the global economic environment remains fragile, and recent economic developments will continue to impact the Canadian economy and government revenues. We have made it clear that we will not impose a harmful, crippling carbon tax on Canadians, like the NDP has on page 4 of its election platform. We do not believe that is productive. We believe it would hurt Canada.

Our Conservative government remains committed to the Canadian economy, and this budget implementation bill will ensure we can continue to grow in an environment where most industrialized nations are struggling.

Through this act, we are facilitating cross-border travel. Pilot projects will begin at ports of entry in Montreal and Prince Rupert which will examine ways to make travelling less burdensome, such as trying to cut out multiple inspections of freight and baggage. Goods should be “once screened, twice accepted”.

Budget 2012 also increases travellers' exemptions. Canadians who visit the U.S. for a 24-hour period will be able to bring in $200 worth of goods. Those returning after 48 hours will be able to bring back $800 worth of goods.

We are removing the red tape and reducing fees for Canadian grain farmers. That is good news for farmers in the Medicine Hat and surrounding area. Our government has allocated $44 million over the next two years to transition the Canadian Grain Commission to a sustainable funding model.

Our government was elected by farmers on a platform to modernize the grain sector in Canada and to keep our economy strong. We have brought in marketing freedom, and the next step is to renew the Grain Commission. These changes will eliminate about $20 million in unnecessary costs from the grain handling system, costs which ultimately are passed down to the farmers.

I urge the opposition to stop playing games with the economy and support the swift passage of this legislation. We are modernizing organizations like the Canadian Grain Commission. It was the same idea with regard to the Canadian Wheat Board. The board was created in a different time. To say that we find ourselves in the same agricultural situation today as we did decades ago would be a stretch, to say the least.

We are trying to create a modern economy to keep us competitive and economically sound at home and abroad.

Through the Red Tape Reduction Commission, we are working to reduce the tax compliance burden for businesses, with such things as simplified administration options for business partnerships, an improved business section on the CRA website, improvements to the rules for paying eligible dividends and graduated penalties for late filings. That is going to help businesses in my Medicine Hat riding; there is no doubt in my mind. If we bring in new regulations, we need to remove one or more items of red tape.

We are not sure what the opposition wants. What we do know is that, besides its $21 billion carbon tax grab on every single Canadian, it wants to raise other taxes as well. It wants to raise the GST, corporate taxes and, most likely, the personal income tax rate as well.

We are going to change the Public Service Superannuation Act, which would fix the public service pension plan so that the plan is more in line with the private sector. That is a necessary cost saving, and it is fair. We are not asking our hard-working public servants to do anything we are not. The bill to fix our MP pensions to reflect the same rules as already passed through the House. I am proud of that, because it had all party support. It just goes to show that we all can work together to get things done, as Canadians expect us to do.

Another part of Bill C-45 is that amendments would be brought to the Income Tax Act to allow for pooled registered pension plans, PRPPs. I would like to talk a little about these, because they are a way for the people of my Medicine Hat riding and all Canadians to save money for retirement. The whole idea behind the PRPP was to provide a way for those who do not necessarily have access to other plans but want to put aside a little nest egg for their retirement anyway. This option would allow people to save money for retirement at a lower cost by pooling their plans through administrators. It would also allow the self-employed to save money.

This is important for people in my riding. I have discussed the new PRPP with small businesses in my riding. They are very excited about the plan and the opportunity it would present to their companies and more importantly, their ability to attract and retain highly skilled employees.

Bill C-45 would reinforce our financial sector by supporting a sound and balanced regulatory regime. We do not presume that Canada is immune to world economic fault lines, but we do know that we fared far better than most in the last four years. I know the opposition disagrees, but let us look at the comments made last week by Christine Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund. She said:

Canada is a country with one of the strongest financial sectors in the world.... Canada can teach the rest of the world about how to build a stronger, safer financial system.

If I look at Canada and the anomaly that it constitutes compared to other countries — because it's growing pretty well, because its banking system is solid and growing, because its inflation is under control, because its fiscal deficit is also pretty much under control and its level of indebtedness is reasonable — you know, it's not bad as a scorecard.

That is quite a statement of what we are doing here. This is not partisan drivel. It was not a Conservative Party of Canada strategist or even our fantastic finance minister who said this. It was Christine Lagarde.

Unlike the NDP, we don't base our economic policy on what crackpot economists working for big union bosses tell us. We take an honest, calm and moderate approach, one that strikes a balance. Bill C-45 would continue to make our country more financially prosperous. That is a good thing.

Bill C-45 would enhance security in regard to people travelling to Canada by plane. As part of the perimeter security and economic competitiveness plan, Canada would be working better to screen travellers so that security threats could be stopped ahead of time. That makes Canada safer. I find it very disturbing that the NDP would not support that and so did the people in my riding.

Let us talk about employment. We know that our government's economic action plan has played not a small part in the creation of 820,000 new jobs. We also have a bevy of tax credits to support job strategy. We would also include in that extending the hiring credit for small businesses in 2012. The NDP will be voting against this. What does the opposition have against small businesses? It strikes me as crazy, especially since we just celebrated small business week. Cities in my riding, like Brooks, Taber and Medicine Hat are growing.

I want to touch on one more part of the economic action plan that would be beneficial to constituents in my riding and in Canada. That is our government's accelerated capital cost allowance for energy generation, to further encourage businesses to invest in clean energy generation and energy efficiency. My province is the largest producer of energy in Canada, and this would help those in the clean energy sector be more successful.

Countless world economic bodies have praised our strong financial position, and we have nothing to be ashamed of. Our record speaks for itself. I am proud to be voting in favour of the bill. I am proud to be part of the Conservative team and family that has only Canada's best interests at heart.

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the member for Medicine Hat peppers his speech with too many half lies. I was looking forward to his addressing the House about growing our economy—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. The hon. member may know that the wording he used is considered an unparliamentary phrase. The member might wish to rephrase his point.

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

Mr. Speaker, his party's policies are not particularly working when it comes to innovation and investment, so repeating the half-truths does not make them full truths. However, it is not surprising. It is all huff and puff from that side with no real action.

I have a specific question from the farmers in my riding in terms of internal trade. They are worried about the supply management system. Could the member address what the effect will be of the application of amendment protocol 12 of the AIT on the supply management system?

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what we have been doing for Canadians is extremely positive. What other country in the world has actually created more than 820,000 jobs?

The agriculture minister and the government are supporting supply management, and we will continue to support it because it is good for Canadians and good for Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked just now about pooled registered pension plans, which are included in Bill C-45. I would like to ask him a few questions about that.

According to a number of experts, a PRPP is clearly not a pension plan, but rather a savings plan. There are already a number of savings plans that many Canadians do not benefit from or take advantage of. Why does the hon. member think that a PRPP will be more efficient than another savings plan like an RRSP or a TFSA?

If he is really serious about the financial security of Canadians, why does he not introduce a bill that seeks, for instance, to protect the pensions of workers in the event of a bankruptcy or to improve the Canada pension plan, or other measures that could improve the financial security of Canadians?

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, pooled registered pension plans would be extremely positive for organizations across the country and people who are not enrolled in major programs. They would allow other organizations to pool their funds together to be able to have very low administrative fees. I talked about that in my speech. Companies are extremely delighted that they would now have this program that would encourage their employees to contribute and help them retain employees and attract new employees. It is extremely important we do that as part of growing this economy and growing jobs in this country.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my great colleague from Medicine Hat, Alberta, for his thoughtful comments regarding the implementation of Bill C-45, which is really based on our budget. I have to say that in my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, it was accepted almost unanimously, with the prospects it has for Canadians.

In Medicine Hat there is a lot of agriculture. Can the member talk a bit about what his constituents have said about this budget but also the implementation of Bill C-45?

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, since we brought in the new Canadian Wheat Board and allowed farmers the freedom to actually sell their grain, I have talked to a number of farmers and they can now sell their grains worldwide and get the prices they want. They do not have to wait for funding. They sell it and get their money. They deliver the product and get their money. They are making historic amounts of money for their farms, so they can buy new equipment and help create more jobs in the economy. It is all about jobs, the economy and helping families, particularly those on the farm.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say how honoured I am to address the House on this bill, following the hon. member for Medicine Hat. The hon. member is as familiar with the issue as any other member in the House, and I know that his opinions have been much appreciated by all sides of the House.

My remarks today will touch on three basic points. The first point is how the jobs and growth act, 2012 would meet an absolutely critical international challenge for Canada and for all of the advanced economies of the world. We are not living in normal times. We are not working in normal times. These are extraordinary times and, in some ways, dangerous times.

My second point will point to some of the key ways in which the bill would strengthen Canada's job advantage. My colleague spoke of a bill that focuses really only on jobs and growth, but we need to continue explaining to the House and to Canadians just how concrete the measures are and just what impact they would have on our ridings.

My third point would be about the local relevance of the bill to my home riding of Ajax—Pickering. It is a national action plan for Canada's economy, but it is a concrete plan and would be helpful to entrepreneurs, workers and young people in Ajax—Pickering and the greater Toronto area, the part of Canada I call home.

I will speak first on the international context. We have been through a week in which extraordinary things, complimentary things, have been said about the Canadian economy and Canada's financial management of its affairs. As everyone knows, the managing director of the IMF was in Toronto to receive an award last week. She praised our financial sector again. She praised our prudence and many of the policies this government has brought forward, as examples to the world. This comes on the heels of a litany of compliments that have been paid to Canada in recent years for the way we came through the economic crisis, for the way we avoided the levels of debt, job loss and contraction of GDP that other countries have had to endure. We have heard these measures of our success from the World Economic Forum, Forbes magazine and from The Economist. I will not repeat them now.

Our success is a contingent success. It depends on continuing to do the right things, continuing to position Canada properly, continuing to watch and learn from what is happening around the world, to make sure we stay at the forefront of events and protect the advantage we have for future generations.

I would like to quote briefly from the October 13 IMF communiqué of the policy steering committee. It is the most recent IMF communiqué, and it is just one sentence, “The implementation of credible medium-term fiscal consolidation plans remains critical in many advanced economies”.

Members know as well as I do what that statement means. It means that if we do not get spending under control, if we do not make it sustainable, if we do not continue to create jobs, remain competitive and trade while keeping our debt levels under control, many economies in Europe, Asia and even in the Americas could go down the same path that Greece, Ireland and Portugal have gone down.

The same communiqué mentions how positive it is that outright monetary transactions are being undertaken by the ECB, how important it is that the European security mechanism is now working to some extent, but it then points to high debt burdens and the absence of banking and fiscal union in Europe as continuing risks.

Japan is facing a challenge this week of financing its budget and of further fiscal consolidation. The same communiqué mentions the danger in the United States of a fiscal cliff, the need to move the debt ceiling in spite of an election that has not yet concluded, and the fiscal sustainability of trillion-dollar-a year deficits.

These cautionary notes are struck with regard to our peers, the other advanced economies. Canada has avoided these pitfalls thanks to the prudence and the good planning of our Prime Minister and our excellent Minister of Finance.

It is absolutely essential that we understand how fraught with danger it would be for Canada to go down the path that Greece, Portugal and other jurisdictions with high taxes, high debt loads and loss of competitive position have gone. However, that is exactly what the member for Outremont is proposing with his $21.5 billion carbon tax. That is exactly what all of the NDP members who spoke on the bill are proposing with their--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member should not be using his speeches to supply misinformation to the House. There is no carbon tax and he needs to be reminded of that and stop using his position in the House to further these untruths. The issue of putting a price on carbon was done by his government in 2008. He needs to be at least--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. Hon. members will know that these types of questions are really matters of debate. I do not see this as a point of order.

The hon. member for Ajax—Pickering.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is extraordinary that the member would stand on a point of order to deny something that was in the platform on which he campaigned. The $21.5 billion carbon tax proposed by his leader, presumably embraced by all members on that side, needs to be brought to the attention of Canadians and will be brought to their attention, because high taxes kill jobs.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on page 680 of O'Brien and Bosc, we find that the Speaker has already ruled on efforts by members to bring up irrelevant issues that have nothing to do with the facts.

The member is once again trying to use his position in the House to create a political untruth. I think he is bringing down the history of debate in this House.

I would refer you, Mr. Speaker, to the references that have already been ruled on by Speakers of people trying to manipulate and undermine credible debate.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I appreciate the reference by the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay to relevance. Indeed, it is true that members are encouraged to include in their debates and points matters that are pertinent to the questions before the House.

That said, members will know that there is a great degree of latitude offered members in the way in which they explore these ideas and bring them around to the points that are before the House. Members are left the opportunity to do just that.

I will note that we are very near the time for statements by members. At this point, we will give the hon. parliamentary secretary the three and a half minutes remaining in his remarks when the House next returns to debate on this matter. He will, of course, have the normal five minutes for questions and comments.

We will proceed to statements by members, with the hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-45, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence has three and a half minutes left to conclude his remarks.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, this opportunity is already memorable for me, given the attempt by the member for Timmins—James Bay to deny a provision of his own party's platform using a point of order, not once during my speech, but twice.

We will not be deflected from our purpose by a $21 billion carbon tax, by the job-killing proposals from the other side. We are focused on a policy of invention and innovation, attracting the best managers and entrepreneurs, ensuring the right skills development for Canadians to make our economy's leading sectors engines of higher productivity, growth and job creation, because that is the bottom line.

Every day that we lose in the House to issues other than setting the conditions for creating jobs is a day when Canadians lose confidence in us. When the time is allocated according to our government's priorities, we will not make that mistake. That is why, for a country that has become even more of a leader in financial services, the bill is improving oversight at CMHC for its securitization functions at this critical moment in the evolution of our property market.

That is why we are updating the Bretton Woods act to make sure we fulfill our international obligations as a strong member of the G20 and the G8.

That is why we are accelerating the capital cost allowance for clean energy and phasing out two tax credits to ensure the neutrality of the system and applying the second one, the one formerly for Atlantic oil and gas and mining, also to clean energy generating equipment. This would ensure that Canadian entrepreneurs all across the country have the best opportunity to grow a leading energy sector even larger in the years and decades to come.

That is why we are updating the Public Service Superannuation Act to ensure there are no unfunded liabilities there.

That is why we are opening the door to pooled registered pension plans to make sure that entrepreneurs and small businesses that do not have access to pensions, and there are millions of them across the country, do so in the future.

That is why we are bringing into law the bridge to strengthen trade act to make sure that the Detroit River international crossing, an artery of the largest trading relationship in the world, moves forward expeditiously and with a strong impetus from Canada behind it.

That is why we are reforming the scientific research and experimental development investment tax credit to remove capital, to remove the profit element for third parties and to reduce the tax credit from 20% to 15%. We think these measures will make it work better and ensure that research and development are increasingly translated into jobs, employment and the breakthroughs of tomorrow that would allow the businesses of tomorrow in this country to move ahead.

These measures have already had a huge impact in my riding. Fifty Ajax business owners have written to me recently about the hiring credit for small business and about the pooled registered pension plan scheme contained in the bill. They are excited about it. It is relevant for them. That only adds to our determination on this side to move ahead. The youth employment strategy that the government has put forward has had benefits across the board in communities like Ajax—Pickering with $428,000 and 67 projects for the summer jobs program just this year, with much more to come under the same strategy.

In Canada's statement, prepared for the recent IMF board meeting in Tokyo, our Minister of Finance spoke of “measures to support jobs and growth by improving conditions for businesses, entrepreneurs and innovators, investing in training and infrastructure, and helping the unemployed find jobs”. That is exactly what the bill does.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague and I was rather let down by the continual use of mistruths.

I would like to quote from the Ottawa Citizen because I think Dan Gardner hit it on the head about the use of the political lie. The whole point of Dan Gardner's article is the use of lying. He said, “the worst part” is that the people in the Prime Minister's Office won't care if he calls them “cynical liars who would wince when they look in the mirror—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale is rising on a point of order.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that we cannot do indirectly what we should not do directly. Clearly, unparliamentary language is being used by the member.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I will remind the hon. member.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am leading a point, and I understand the rules of Parliament. That is why I think it is very important that he listen to this. He said that--

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. Order, please.

I will just remind the member for Timmins—James Bay that we cannot do indirectly what we are not allowed to do directly. Even when quoting from media reports or articles, and we have had cases of this in the House before, we cannot use unparliamentary language or use it to accuse members of unparliamentary actions.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in this Parliament there is a notion that we cannot call someone a liar, but the notion that someone can lie is seen as parliamentary. I would continue with Dan Gardner's phrase:

It’s the gobsmacking cynicism and the contempt that is its foundation. Contempt for Parliament, the judiciary, the media, and anyone who gets in their way. But most of all, contempt for Canadians.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there was no question there. There was no truth there. There was no integrity there in the remarks of the member opposite. However, that is no surprise to those of us on this side of the House.

That will not, however, let the members opposite off the hook. A $21.5 billion carbon tax on page 4 of their own party platform remains with them--

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

He may refrain from calling people liars, but he cannot stand in this House and make a mistruth. He does not have that evidence and he has used this again and again in this House to divert attention.

I refer him to page 680 of O'Brien--

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. The hon. member has asked a question. The parliamentary secretary is answering it. It sounds like what the member for Timmins—James Bay is raising is a further point of debate. If there is time, I can recognize him for another question and comment and he could make his point then.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor to respond to the comment made by the member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bill before this House is absolutely about fiscal policy, and it is absolutely legitimate for members on this side of the House to draw the contrast between a low tax plan for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity and the electoral platform of the other side, on the basis of which some of them entered the House.

That $21.5 billion carbon tax proposed by his leader, embraced by all of them, expresses that contrast as well as anything else, as does the performance of his leader in debate in the House last week, when he spoke for the better part of an hour without even mentioning the question of public debt.

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

Mr. Speaker, speaking of what is in platforms, in their 2008 platform, the Conservatives promised to:

develop and implement a North American-wide cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases and air pollution, with implementation to occur between 2012 and 2015.

If he is interested in reading further, there is an article by a Jeffrey Simpson in The Globe and Mail that talks about the “Conservative carbon amnesia”. It reads:

The Conservative Party's attack machine, with its television ads, canned speeches and pre-written scripts, has always been constructed on exaggeration tinged with mendacity. To this, since Parliament resumed, can now be added flagrant hypocrisy, since the machine and its mouthpieces, Conservative MPs, are attacking with customary vehemence the very policy on which they once campaigned.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague could respond to that.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows perfectly well that there is no such North American regime and there never was a policy proposal on this side to create a $21.5 billion carbon tax.

That proposal did not come from this party. That proposal came from his party, and both members who have asked these questions and reminded this House many times over should know that it is not so much the policy move, the policy mistake, that matters, but the cover up that Canadians find particularly off-putting.

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

Mr. Speaker, it has become clear that omnibus bills will now be the norm in the House of Commons. It gives me no pleasure to rise today at second reading of Bill C-45, the second omnibus budget bill.

In addition to implementing the 2012 budget, the Trojan Horse bill included a number of other changes that had not been announced beforehand. This is yet another budget implementation bill that goes well beyond implementing the budget.

We said it when the Trojan Horse bill was forced through the House in May, and we are saying it now: this is not an acceptable way of doing things in a so-called democratic country like Canada. The monster Bill C-45 is over 440 pages long and contains a huge number of disparate measures. It would amend over 60 laws, giving the minister more power and weakening environmental protection legislation.

It also sets out a vast number of complicated measures, including a reworking of the Canada Grain Act and changes to subsidies for scientific research and experimental development, elements that are essential to the nation's development. In addition, it sets out major changes to the public service pension plan and the Canada Labour Code.

Here are the facts. The Conservatives have introduced a bill encompassing dozens of disparate measures, and they want to have it passed as quickly as possible so that we do not have time to talk about it. That is because they do not want Canadians to know what really goes on here in the House of Commons. MPs do not have enough time to study the bill closely and analyze its repercussions. Who will pay the price for that? Canadians—the very people whose interests the government is supposed to protect. As elected representatives, Conservative MPs are also supposed to work for Canadians.

On the one hand, MPs are being prevented from doing the work they were elected to do, and on the other, Canadians are being kept in the dark. Fortunately, Canadians can count on the NDP, which strongly opposes the undemocratic nature of Bill C-45.

We have defended and will always proudly defend the concepts of transparency and accountability. We will always stand up for environmental protection. We will always stand up for old age security and health care. If we do not, who will? Certainly not the government, which is showing us once again that democracy is not its priority.

Canadians are not blind. They know that the government is not doing so and that it is preventing the official opposition from doing its job by imposing a gag order once again. Actually, how many gag orders have we had so far? I think it is a record number. I am not sure what the exact figure is, but I know there have been more than 20. In short, that is preventing us from doing our job.

As a result of the strong offensive launched by our party, the government is finally going to allow various committees to study this bill. What a privilege. However, we do not know whether we will be able to propose amendments during those consultations. Needless to say, that will greatly hinder the process.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer, or PBO, has once again said that members of Parliament are not receiving the information they need to be able to reasonably exercise their power of oversight. Well, yes, power of oversight, but also responsibility of oversight.

The PBO recently even had to threaten to take the Conservative government to court if it did not forward the information about the budget cuts that were announced. The government has to stop trying to obstruct the work of Parliament and must allow a real study of this bill.

Canadians will agree that the amendments and their impact on Canadian families need to be studied in particular. It is appalling to see that, once again, Canadian families are being completely ignored. The government is continuing to ignore the real needs of Canadians.

According to the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, 4 million Canadians, including 750,000 children, have core housing needs at this time. However, once again, the 2012 budget implementation bill does not contain any measures related to housing or any measures to fight poverty or homelessness. Yet major institutions like the Wellesley Institute and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities have sounded the alarm several times. These national organizations asked the federal government to invest in housing in the most recent budget. Clearly, nothing has been done.

Housing is an important issue not only for families, but also for seniors, a very high-risk group. The current government reduced old age security benefits, which means that some seniors will have even more difficulty paying their rent. Approximately one-third of social housing is occupied by seniors, and one-third of that group is at risk of losing their housing because long-term operating agreements between the federal government and housing co-operatives are not being renewed.

A survey conducted by the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association found that the number of seniors waiting for housing has been increasing steadily since 2004. That number is increasing, yet this government does nothing. Seniors represented one-quarter of all households waiting for housing in 2011.

Since we are talking about poverty, let us also talk about the changes to employment insurance. These measures will also have an impact on a claimants' ability to find housing, particularly since the federal operating agreements are about to expire. As a result of the loss of employment insurance benefits, more households may have core housing needs. Core housing needs are no joke. I am talking about substandard, overpriced homes that are difficult to heat and that are too small for families. These are not trivial matters.

Since the federal government did not introduce any housing measures in its budget, it could at least help all Canadians by supporting my national housing strategy. It will not do so under the pretext that housing falls under provincial jurisdiction.

And yet, the purpose of Bill C-400 is to provide secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians, while respecting provincial jurisdictions. The government's inaction is a mystery.

Once again, the government is not demonstrating leadership. The omnibus bill contains another attack on agriculture, which provides even more evidence that the government is not demonstrating leadership.

Bill C-38 already hit my riding hard—really hard—by interfering with the CFIA's ability to conduct proper inspections to ensure the food security of all Canadians.

Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is one of the biggest agricultural regions in Quebec. The CFIA's services are thus very important to this region, which largely depends on agriculture-related economic activity.

Unfortunately, we still do not know what impact the cuts will have on the CFIA's regional centre, which is located in my riding. Many people are concerned about their jobs, and for good reason.

However, that is not my riding's only concern. Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is made up of 25 municipalities and more or less all of the farmers there grow grains. Thus, many of these farmers will be affected by the elimination of the grain appeal tribunals, which are independent committees set up by the region that provide a great deal of support to farmers. Who will farmers deal with if they do not have anyone to represent their region?

If Bill C-45 is passed, any recourse will automatically have to go through the chief grain inspector. Will the chief grain inspector be able to consider the unique characteristics of my riding as well as the local committees can? I seriously doubt it and so do my constituents.

In fact, all Canadians doubt the Conservatives' approach. The 443-page omnibus bill proves that they have reason to doubt.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke a lot about housing in her speech, and in the last budget we saw that cuts to housing were interpreted as savings.

Does she not consider money allocated to housing to be an investment in society?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Hochelaga for her very pertinent question.

Indeed, from an objective point of view, economically speaking, in a society, people with proper housing are better off financially to be able to cope with reality and are in better health.

We know that housing is a critical determinant of health. In a society where people are healthy and have proper housing, where they have secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing, they are able to eat properly, pay hydro bills to stay warm, as well as keep up with other expenses, for example, expenses related to sending their kids to school. Our society would be better educated.

Investing in housing, in the fight against homelessness and poverty, pays off. Making cuts to programs that the public needs and that contribute to the healthy development of our communities does not save money.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the wonderful speech made by my colleague. I also heard the speech of a member opposite, in which he praised his government.

But here it is written in black and white that the Parliamentary Budget Officer says that the budget will lead to the loss of 43,000 Canadians jobs. He said that in reality, this budget will cause the unemployment rate to go up.

Does my colleague not think that Canadians deserve better?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. Yes, Canadians deserve much better than what this government is offering them.

Canadians deserve a decent employment insurance program. Canadians deserve adequate housing. Canadians deserve help getting off the street when they need it. Canadians deserve a decent food inspection system so they can eat safely. Canadians deserve a strong economy. Canadians deserve jobs and a safe and healthy work environment in which they can thrive.

That is what Canadians deserve, but that is not what this government is offering them.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to stand to speak on Bill C-45, the second implementation bill of our jobs and growth act. This is an activity we are embarking upon as a government to make sure that Canadians have a job and that our economy is growing.

As part of the system that we have in this country, we present a budget in the spring, which is a policy document, and then we have two implementation acts every year. We had one in the spring and now we are having one in the fall. This bill is to implement the budget that was passed by this House in the spring.

It is important to understand that the bill would implement what has already been debated and discussed. It is nice to talk about things, but it is important for this government to make it happen on the ground and that we implement what we say we are going to do.

The process is not a new one, as it has been in the House for many decades. When there is a budget, an implementation bill comes afterwards, which is what we are doing here today.

There are three or four things that I would like to highlight from the bill.

First, extending the hiring credit for small- and medium-sized employers would enable them to hire new employees and create jobs for people in my riding and ridings across this country.

This is a $1,000 hiring credit, and last year it affected over 530,000 employers. We have seen the benefits from this tax credit in helping small businesses attract new people to develop their products and services. It has provided jobs to those in great need of employment, particularly youth. This is an opportunity for youth to find employment here in Canada.

Nobody is kidding anybody around here; it is a difficult environment for small business. As government, we need to help small business move forward, and this tax credit is one way to do that.

Also, Bill C-45 contains the tax framework for pooled registered savings plans. This is a tool that I have debated numerous times in the House, both at second and third reading in the spring. We talked about the need for an additional tool for small business to attract and retain employees, and for employees in this country to have an opportunity to have a pooled registered savings plan for their retirement. The bill would implement the tax changes that are required to make that happen.

It is important for us to have this debate, but we must move on and pass the bill. The legislation has passed for the pooled registered retirement savings plan, but we now need to take action and implement the changes that are needed to make it happen.

Another piece in Bill C-45 is the expanded accelerated capital cost allowance, ACCA. This would allow businesses to invest in clean green energy generation products, which would include machinery that had not been eligible for an accelerated capital cost allowance. However, the machinery would have to be in the clean energy generation business and meet the environmental criteria.

The bill would allow businesses to invest early on and to write-off the cost of the new investment in a speedier, more accelerated way. It would encourage companies to make those investments and make a difference.

The benefits of the expanded accelerated capital cost allowance are twofold. It would help small business get the equipment they need and it would also support the clean energy agenda that we have as a party. It would ensure that the Canadian government is doing what it can to support industry in providing cleaner energy for the people of this country.

One area that I am very proud and excited about is the registered disability savings plan, RDSP. There are a number of changes to that.

I remember when I was on the finance committee and heard about this idea of a registered disability savings plan, a program that would allow parents and grandparents, particularly parents, to invest in the future of a child with a disability. It is a plan that would provide financial security for young Canadians with disabilities. When their parents are no longer able to support them, a plan will be available for them to call on.

What is very important is that this bill would allow the registered education saving plans to be rolled over into a registered disability savings plans. I am very fortunate to have two healthy children. That does not happen in every family. As a past employee of Easter Seals Ontario, and my wife being a current employee, we know of the difficulties, the struggles and efforts of parents with disabled children.

Of course, not every child is born disabled, and sometimes things happen, whether it is an accident or health issue, which unfortunately causes a child to become disabled. Families may have invested in an RESP with the hope that some day a child would be able to use that capital to obtain a post-secondary education. That does not always happen. Instead of losing those investments that parents have made, they would be able to roll that investment into an RDSP for a child's future needs.

There are also a few other smaller changes. I have been the chair of the Conservative marine caucus for a number of years, which is making some changes to improve the certification of ships that are over 24 metres. Those practices are being improved to make sure we have clean safe ships floating on our Great Lakes and off both coasts. We want to make sure they are safe, that they have the right environmental responsibility and that they harmonize with other international inspection certification programs, which I am very happy with.

One thing that has been a bit of a controversy is the change to the SR and ED program, which is the scientific research and experimental development program. It is a tax credit that companies have been able to attract. It was at the 20% mark, but it is down to 15% in this bill. The enhanced SR and ED program is still at 35%.

However, this was not done in a vacuum. There was a study done by Mr. Jenkins. The Jenkins report talked about the difference between the tax credit and direct support. As all of us know in the House, there have been no complaints. In fact, there has been lots of uptake on IRAP, the industrial research assistance program. IRAP is a direct funding mechanism. The Jenkins report said that we need balance; we are not sure whether we are getting the bang for the buck on the $9 billion we are spending on research. We know that IRAP is producing. We know that it is a very attractive program to individuals. With regard to SR and ED, it depends on the company.

There was a very good presentation at the industry committee last week. A gentleman was there from a company in Burlington, which has used SR and ED extensively over the years. His point was that SR and ED was a bonus because companies are not sure whether they qualify for it every year or not. We are trying to rebalance the issue with the IRAP program. People get the money in advance, and it is a direct support of research and development. SR and ED will still exist and is an opportunity for people to use the tax system to support the development of their research.

Hopefully this new balance will provide more results, because that is really what we want as a government. We want results. We want R and D to turn into product that is commercialized and that we can sell, not just to Canadians, but around the world. We are a trading country, and we need to make sure we have the ability to do that.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the tax credits in his speech, which sounded quite interesting. I guess there is the rub with this omnibus bill. Instead of being able to sit down and talk in-depth about some interesting tax credits like that with our colleagues, we are forced to accept less than pleasant changes in Bill C-45 that overshadow these rather interesting options. How does the member feel about that?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was the perfect question for me. We have committed to send parts of this legislation to 10 or 11 committees so the individual committees can look at individual parts of it. However, what happens when we do that? In The Hill Times the opposition said that it was partial victory for the backing down of the federal government. We are criticized as a government. That is what is wrong with this place. Those members talk about working together and getting things done.

Opposition members also talk about the budget being 440 pages long. It is English and French on each page. It is actually 220 pages. It is not that big. If I can read a novel of 220 pages, then I can read a bill of 220 pages.

We are breaking up the bill. We are sending 10 or 11 parts to different committees so members on all of those committees can review the issues and discuss the tax changes that will happen. What do those members do? They criticize us. They say that we are backing down. We are doing what is right for Canadians, and we will continue to do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, since we are dealing with such a small document and my colleague is such an expert on financial issues, let me ask him this short question.

On page 241 of the budget speech last March, Mr. Flaherty talked about the Employment Insurance Financing Board continuing to set the rate. However in the budget implementation plan, Bill C-45, section 435 says that will no longer happen and the rate will be set by the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Finance.

Could the member explain to us why something in the budget last March has been changed in this specific case?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I go to the member for Burlington, I would like to remind all hon. members not to refer to their colleagues by their given names in the chamber but rather by their riding or by their office.

The hon. member for Burlington.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have any answer for the member as to what the difference is. I do not have the budget in front of me to refer to the specific page.

In terms of EI, we put together a board allowing it to manage the EI system. With what happened under the Liberals, we had to do it. The Liberals took all of the surplus money in EI and used it for their own purposes. They used it for other government purposes, not for EI. For that not to happen, we brought in a stronger employment insurance board to ensure that policies would be in place so that could not happen in the future.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to point out how ironic it is that, on the one hand, the Minister of Finance is telling us in this House that we should have done our jobs over the summer and read the budget and memorized every aspect of it, while on the other hand, when we ask our Conservative colleagues to tell us a little more about certain measures that can be found on specific pages of the budget, they are completely incapable of doing so.

Let us move on to something else and get back to a more crucial matter: my speech.

I am extremely proud to rise here today in the House to oppose Bill C-45, the Conservatives' latest omnibus bill. Despite harsh criticisms from hundreds if not thousands of Canadians when the Conservatives introduced Bill C-38, here they are again introducing another gigantic bill that addresses pretty much anything and everything but the 2012 budget.

Bill C-45, the second mammoth budget bill, amends over 60 different laws and is over 400 pages long, and the government drafted it without consulting anyone at all. Once again, the Conservatives are trying to ram their legislation through Parliament without giving Canadians and their elected representatives an opportunity to examine it in detail, which is what should happen in any good democracy.

Over the past few days, I have heard far too many Conservative members state that the parliamentary process and procedural matters are trivial details and that Canadians do not care about things like that. They have said that omnibus bills and other tactics to undermine democracy have been used for decades, that it is no big deal, that it has always been this way and that our democracy is in great shape.

As an example of this, I would like to share parts of a speech given on October 24 by the member for Saint Boniface. She made some rather disturbing statements to that effect. I will read them in English because the original version is so eloquent and delightful that it is worth reading in the original language.

From the opposition members, we will hear a lot of talk about process and procedure, or what some would call “inside baseball”, that appeals to a small number of Canadians, mostly located in Ottawa. They talk about process to dictate the exact length of the debate, procedure for the formatted legislation, process for a timeline for a committee study, and on and on.

A little later in the same speech, she added:

In other words, it is really meaningless to the everyday lives of the vast majority of Canadians...

I must admit that I was quite surprised and disappointed to hear a government member say such things. I spoke to many constituents in my riding, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, whose reaction to such statements was exactly the same as mine. Having a majority does not absolve the government of its obligation to be transparent, open and accountable, nor does it give the government the right to abuse the public trust by introducing omnibus bills like this one, which MPs cannot examine properly and carefully. The government is breaking parliamentary rules every day and abusing those rules in order to hide its true agenda from the people. Then it has the nerve to say that Canadians do not really care. That is shameful.

Just like Bill C-38, Bill C-45 eviscerates current environmental protection measures and concentrates even more power in the hands of Conservative ministers. Quite honestly, I find that prospect less than thrilling.

First of all, Bill C-45 guts the Navigable Waters Protection Act by eliminating the concept of water protection from the name of the act and from the legislation, and focusing solely on the issue of protecting navigation. With the exception of three oceans, 97 lakes and 62 rivers in all of Canada, the act will no longer apply automatically to projects that have a direct impact on waterways. Of the 37 rivers in the Canadian heritage rivers system, only 10 will be protected by the law that has been newly gutted by the government. As a result of the Conservatives' bullheaded ideology, thousands of waterways will no longer be protected automatically and even fewer environmental impact assessments will be carried out by Transport Canada. The provinces will have to fill the void, without any compensation, of course.

These major changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act are particularly worrisome for people who live in ridings such as mine, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, which has several hundred wetlands, streams and rivers, as well as extensive access to the St. Lawrence River.

Waterways are at the heart of many economic activities vital to the riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, especially tourism. Their protection is of the utmost importance to my constituents. Therefore, the amendments proposed by the Conservatives to the Navigable Waters Protection Act are some of the most troubling for the people in my riding.

In addition to these changes, Bill C-45 also amends the Canadian environmental assessment act 2012, in part to deal with problems noted in the last budget implementation bill, but primarily to further weaken environmental impact assessments.

These are two major issues that affect the environment, but I could go on about others for hours and hours. There are all the amendments to the public service pension plan and to the Canada Grain Act, which are being proposed without any consultation. Once again, these changes will have a great impact on my riding and the many farmers who live there. There are also amendments to the Canada Labour Code, which will affect women and young people in particular, because they often must work part time for lack of other opportunities.

As they have so often done in the past, the Conservatives are doing everything they can to bypass Parliament so that they do not have to be accountable to Canadians.

Every time the government introduces a new bill, it violates the underlying principles of our democracy by restricting parliamentary debate and in-depth study of its bills. Bill C-45 is just the latest in a long line of autocratic Conservative tactics. Unfortunately, this is becoming an extremely regrettable tradition in Canada's Parliament.

As a new member, this is not how I wanted to work. The NDP has tried very hard to work with the other parties. However, every time we try to work with the Conservatives, they shut the door and do as they please, even if it means introducing other bills later and wasting MPs' and Canadians' time. For example, they introduce new legislation to fix problems with a previous bill that the opposition pointed out before the bill was passed. That is a huge waste of time. They are completely uncompromising and do not want to work with the opposition.

As we have heard over and over, the Parliamentary Budget Officer stated that members do not have enough information to reasonably exercise their power of oversight. In fact, the PBO had to threaten to put the matter before the courts to gain access to even a little information about the Conservatives' budget cuts. The Conservatives say that the PBO is overstepping his mandate, and they do not want to provide the information.

How are we supposed to analyze the budget if we do not know what the government is spending and where it is making cuts? This new way of keeping everyone in the dark is highly dangerous and worrisome. I hope that the PBO will not have to go to court to get the information that all members of the House need. The Conservative members need it too. I am sure that they are just as much in the dark as the opposition members. They do not have the information they need to do their work, yet they are making decisions to block the democratic work of Parliament and, as such, they are not living up to the trust that their constituents have placed in them.

The government has agreed to have 10 parliamentary committees study this second omnibus bill. At first glance, that gesture may seem like a sign of goodwill on the government's part, but, make no mistake, that is not the case. Those committees will not be able to amend Bill C-45. We are not yet sure of the answer, but it is obvious. Members of Parliament will be asked to sit in committee and witnesses across the country to travel and discuss the bill, its impact on the public, its potentially disastrous consequences or legislative gaps that we have not yet identified, but this work will be in vain. People will be asked to come and waste their time, and the Conservatives will still do exactly what they want without taking into account what anyone has to say.

Clearly, with their bill that is several hundred pages long, the Conservatives want to prevent the opposition members from doing their job by trying to cover up major ideological changes to more than 60 bills.

The Conservatives are proud to spend tens of millions of dollars on advertising propaganda, but then they tell Canadians that there is not much money for services that are essential to them.

We in the NDP have always proudly defended the concepts of transparency and accountability, and we are going to continue to do so every day. We have always defended environmental protection, old age security and health care, and we are going to continue to do so.

We are proud to fight each and every day for Canadian families. That is why my colleagues and I will oppose Bill C-45.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, during the member's speech, she kind of lost me on the corners a little bit.

There was some talk that the public had not been consulted, so let me share with the hon. member how the public is consulted. Chambers of commerce, individual people, business owners, large and small, and city and town councils were involved, as well as media, newspapers, television and radio.

I am not sure how much more consulting we can do. I am sure I speak for my colleagues who consulted in their ridings. In the past four years that I have been in this place, we submit our thoughts to the Minister of Finance regarding the budget, as do all our colleagues over on this side of the House. To suggest there is not consultation is entirely wrong.

Then my colleague said we are bringing in people from all over the country to sit and tell us about the budget. The member says we do not consult on one hand, and on the other hand we are now dragging all of Canada into one pot.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not realize that I was speaking so quickly or that what I was saying was so complicated. Next time I will make sure that I speak more slowly.

As for the consultations, do they truly take into account the opinions expressed by Canadians? It is one thing to talk to people, but if we do not take what they are saying into account, then there is no point.

The consultations on Bill C-45 that I mentioned would follow up on this government's oh-so-magnanimous decision to allow 10 committees to study this bill. That is perhaps when we will hear from witnesses, but if there is no opportunity to present amendments, then it is a complete waste of time. I hope that I clarified my position for the hon. member.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question. At the beginning of her speech she mentioned words that were said in another colleague's speech in regard to the waste of time, basically, of the act of democracy.

I would ask the member to comment on this. I submit that this is exactly we are here. This is why this House exists. It is for that discussion, including discussion of dissent, to find that balance between what is proposed and what is not.

I wonder if the member could comment on that.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber, who has allowed me to come back to a very important part of the discussion we have had in the House about Bill C-45, a discussion that will unfortunately be too short, since once again, the government has imposed a time allocation motion.

When the government says that parliamentary rules and procedures are not important, it is rejecting the very essence of our work. These rules provide a framework for our debates and ensure a transparent, clear and fair process for everyone. The government says that these rules are just a technicality and that getting a majority by winning an election with barely 30% of the vote means that Canadians gave it a mandate to do whatever it wants. That is an aberration and an abuse of the trust of the people we represent here.

We are here to speak on behalf of all Canadians. However, if every time the government introduces a budget bill it tries to stifle the opposition, which represents a considerable number of people, there is a problem because our democracy is eroding. Changes need to be made, and fast.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this bill would implement last spring's budget bill, a budget that had its priorities for Canadians straight. It contains many technical amendments and some substantive matters such as building a much-needed new bridge at the Detroit River crossing. It is designed to facilitate growth, trade and innovation and to reduce red tape regulations that hold up innovation and growth. It is about the economy. It is about jobs. It also would facilitate select incentives for small and medium businesses, such as the EI tax credit of $1,000 a year for employers so they would hire more people.

The primary purpose of all our budget bills is to help grow our economy in a time of fragile international economic growth, without reaching into the bank accounts of Canadians or scooping more money from their pay cheques before they even see them, while balancing the budget.

Therefore, the formula is for growth for Canada, reducing debt that costs us millions of dollars in interest, with no tax increases and with no severe austerity measures like they have had to have in Europe.

Where is Canada's economy in relation to the world's? The World Economic Forum recently ranked Canada's financial system as the safest and soundest in the world for the fifth year in a row, making Canada the most secure place in the world to invest. We now hold the highest possible credit rating from the three principal credit rating agencies, saving us tens of millions of dollars in interest payments. We hold the best fiscal position in the G7. Forbes magazine recently proclaimed Canada the number one place in the world to do business. To prove all this is working for Canadian people, 820,000 new jobs have been created since 2009, a better record than the other G7 countries and even Germany. The jobs and growth act 2012 would further our successes.

Every country in Europe that is technically bankrupt or has been bailed out, like Portugal, Spain, Italy or Greece, would be thrilled to be able to do what our Prime Minister and Minister of Finance have done. These are countries that thought the gravy train would never stop, with governments that practised wilful blindness for decades and are now forced to implement huge cutbacks on services, where 25% to 50% of the young people are unemployed.

Unlike Greece, where people protest massive cutbacks and lack of job opportunities, we have students in Quebec protesting because the lowest tuition in Canada would rise by $325 a year and they want it free. That is quite a contrast and I think the irony escapes them.

However, here is another stark contrast. While Canada has announced phased-in changes to the old age supplement to ensure our auxiliary income supplement is on sound financial footing—changes that do not even start for 11 years and are phased in over 6 years—Portugal has been forced, by its own debt and interest charges, to raise the age for basic pensions for women from 60 to 65 overnight. Our national pension plan, the CPP, has no need to be changed at all. It is sound. Yet, the New Democrats' fearmongering is terrible among our most vulnerable citizens, misleading them that their pensions have been cut. The New Democrats have no shame.

The fundamental question for Canadians expressed in this bill is this. Do we want to plan our future on responsible, Conservative stewardship of our economy—for example, the old age supplement—or on the fearmongering comments of the NDP and claims made recently by its leader that, if elected in 2015, he would pull back the age at which seniors get their $500 a month to age 65. “Just vote for us and all will be well; we care about you,” he says.

However, this is exactly the way that most of Europe got itself into such massive trouble in recent years: decades of buying votes with borrowed money; acting as if they care more about people because they hand them more borrowed money, under the pretense that it is only the rich corporations that would pay for it, not consumers and not taxpayers. This government will never attempt to sneak in a massive increase in the cost of anything and everything, like a carbon tax on energy disguised as a cap and trade system.

I have a document here. It is the NDP costing program for the last campaign. On the front page, it says, “Giving your family a break”, and on the inside it says, “Be a part of it”; and the second-last line, where hardly anybody would look, says “Cap and Trade Revenues By Year” and it adds up to $21.5 billion.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay on a point of order.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again there is this constant misinformation, and I do not know if my colleague knows the difference. There are no words “carbon tax”, but “cap and trade” is in his 2008 election budget. Did he not read his election budget when he ran, or does it not mean anything to him?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

This is a point of debate, not a point of order.

The hon. member for Oakville.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats do not understand, and never will understand, the difference between “cap and trade”, which is revenue neutral, and a carbon tax which brings in new revenue to the government.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. Order, to the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay. I have not given him the floor. If he has a point of order, he is welcome to raise that, but he is not to abuse points of order by raising debate. If he has a point of order, he can make it now.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my point of order goes back to the issue of using our House to plant misinformation. He said it was cap and trade, that that was the point. Then that is the point. He should say it was cap and trade.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

This is not a point of order. This is a point of debate.

The hon. member for Oakville.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, here is what the NDP leader and the NDP MPs should really be telling their trusting supporters. The NDP would bring the qualifying age for OAS to 65, 11 years from now, but people would have to pay more for eggs, bread, milk and other groceries, more to heat their homes, more for electricity, more to fill up their cars and more for everything they buy at the mall, forever, and they would never break even. The NDP cares about them.

The reality is the ideologues in the NDP, who for decades have cherished policies designed to redistribute what they call wealth evenly to all Canadians, will not give the policies up. Instead of creating an equal playing field of opportunity for all Canadians—who work hard, make sacrifices and take risks to be able to improve their own lives and build a little wealth—which is what the bill would help to do, the NDP expects them to risk their life savings to start a business and create jobs for others, for a take-home pay based upon some kind of national average, created through massive tax increases.

The Broadbent Institute calls this a more equal Canada. The question is: Equal to what? It would be equal to Greece, perhaps.

This bill demonstrates our agenda. But why is the NDP opposed?

In a report published last week, the socialists at the Broadbent Institute laid bare their true beliefs, demonstrating they want governments to have a much greater piece of the earnings of all Canadians. They think that is how wealth is created, because they learned that in books written by people who read it in other books. These ideas and statements inevitably come from people who have never started a business and usually never even worked in one.

In the recent report, the socialists were severely disappointed that taxes in Canada are only 31% as a share of national income, while they are 34% in most advanced countries, which means they not only want the $21.5 billion carbon tax but another $30 billion to implement their theories on Canadians.

How do they measure success? It is in how much taxes people pay, not quality of life, not the total average income, not how carefully taxes are spent and what value we get from money, and not the most important indicator of a true democracy: social and economic mobility—how many Canadians can access post-secondary training and education so they can have a better quality of life than their parents did—not how easy or difficult it is for an entrepreneur to start a business and hire others, improving their lives. They study how much of the wealth is mine, how much is ours, how much should be the government's and how we need the government to take more so it can do everything for us. They call it social spending.

These are people who, if they were isolated on a desert island, would sit for days and talk about how to divide up their last fish. The Conservatives would be out finding ways to catch more. The Liberals would be talking about who should decide. And the Green Party would be burying the fish for fertilizer.

Here are the new taxes the socialists want to introduce in Canada, as expressed by the NDP soulmates at the Broadbent Institute.

One, increase the capital gains tax to the same level as income tax. That would reduce investment in Canada that creates jobs.

Two, eliminate tax loopholes they say are only for the rich. However, we know from our experience in Ontario that it would affect the entire middle class.

Three, introduce a death tax to eliminate—and I am quoting from the Broadbent Institute—“morally unjustifiable class privilege being passed on to the next generation”. Let me translate that. That is the money our parents worked so hard to save, so that we could have a better quality of life than they did. They do not say if they would take 100% or 90% or just 50%, but it would all go to the collectives.

I am not making this stuff up. They want to tax financial transactions. That would discourage investors from buying and trading in Canadian securities, which is a key source of job growth.

They want, of course, a carbon tax and higher taxes on natural resources; all this to promote a socially and environmentally sustainable society.

The tax grabs are always couched in terms of the environment or social justice, which means they would decide, using taxes, the take-home pay of every person in Canada. They dream that everyone would work as hard for the collective as they do for their own families.

That Marxist theory has failed in every country in the world in which it has been tried, yet the socialists never give up.

They also want premiums on social service programs—in other words, user fees for social services. It is very important for everyone to know that.

They want more value-added taxes. On top of the GST and the provincial taxes, it appears they want a new value-added tax.

That would all fund expensive, unaffordable entitlement programs, the kind that have bankrupted most of Europe.

We believe in the freedom to work hard, choose to start one's own business or not, pay reasonable taxes, earn good wages or profits, and not be continually harassed and burdened by new fees, taxes and unnecessary rules from three levels of government.

This bill would be an important step along the road to the prosperity that all Canadians deserve.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question about what is missing in the budget implementation act. On page 32 of the Conservative 2008 platform entitled “The True North Strong and Free”, under the heading “Developing a Cap and Trade System to Cut Pollution and Greenhouse Gas Emissions” it promises that a re-elected Conservative government will implement the cap and trade system between the years 2012 and 2015.

I want to ask the member how that is coming along.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the NDP do not understand the difference between a revenue neutral cap and trade system where businesses trade or we trade even within countries, such as we were planning to do within North America, and a carbon tax, which is a revenue grab from consumers to spend in whatever way the NDP would like.

There was a plan in 2006 to have a cap and trade system with our American partner, but it was not willing so that did not happen. It is pretty simple.

Allow me to demonstrate what governments can do at very little cost and how good governments that respect personal freedom and choice can create a climate that attracts thousands of jobs.

On Thursday, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage heard testimony from Ubisoft Entertainment, a video gaming company based in Montreal. It also has offices in Quebec City and Toronto. It came to Canada from France 15 years ago and has grown to 3,000 jobs in Canada. I asked why it chose to grow its company here. The first reason given was corporate taxes. now at 15%, and provincial tax incentives, as well as skilled workers and the advantage of having the French language in Quebec as the company came from France.

Therefore, a Conservative federal government and two provincial governments created a climate for a business, which continues to grow, and now employs 3,000 Canadians with good paying jobs and educated workers, all of whom pay income tax no doubt totally tens of millions of dollars. Some of those jobs were a portion of the 820,000 jobs created in Canada since 2009 by this government.

The legislation in this bill will no doubt help attract tens of thousands more.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thought that was a whole new speech.

The question I want to ask is this. I was shocked what I heard the member say earlier, alleging that there was buying votes with borrowed money. I believe he was referring to seniors. Is this the same party and the same Prime Minister who did not tell Canadians what their plans were with respect to the OAS? What is this business about buying votes? This is about actually telling people the truth about what the Conservative government has planned, something it neglected to say during the federal election.

How can the member defend that?

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have worked as a volunteer in non-profit seniors housing early in the nineties going back 12 years at least. I have been on the board of St. Hilda's Towers, a not-for-profit seniors supportive housing residence in Toronto, for 212 years, so I have worked with seniors for a long time.

The greatest fear that seniors have is they will run out of money. The second greatest fear is they will not have any money to leave their children in many cases. However, even seniors who have a lot money, for example, someone selling a house in Toronto could easily get $500,000 to over $1 million, are afraid they will run out of money.

Therefore, when the NDP organizes and its leader goes out and tells Canadians that someone is slashing their pensions, which is not true, it is profoundly frightening for those people. It is a shame that it would happen.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, could the member for Oakville talk about some of the advantages for families that we see in this jobs and growth for long-term prosperity bill?

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is jobs, careers, hope and opportunity. One of the biggest problems we have in society right now is that university grads who come out, many with an ordinary BA, which is a four-year degree and many without academic degrees, simply cannot find a good job. They can find a job at Starbucks and in fast food restaurants. Some in my riding of Oakville have two or three part-time jobs, which drags on for six months, a year and even longer.

In my office in Oakville, I have hired five young university graduates from Oakville to provide them with their first job because the first job is the hardest one to get experience.

The entire process that this bill and everything this government is focused on is about the economy and our young people being able to start a new career and get jobs.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, The Environment; the hon. member for Nickel Belt, Workplace Safety.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand and speak today to Bill C-45, the second omnibus budget implementation act. As with Bill C-38 this past spring, New Democrats oppose Bill C-45 on both content and process. This bill continues on the path set by Bill C-38, which puts more power in the hands of cabinet ministers and guts environmental protections.

As the official opposition critic for science and technology, I will focus my comments on the aspects of the bill concerning my area of focus, especially those concerning the scientific research and experimental development tax credit. However, I will start with a few general comments.

As we have heard in the House today, Bill C-45 is another massive omnibus bill. Once again, the Conservatives are trying to ram legislation through Parliament without allowing Canadians and their MPs to thoroughly examine it. What is disturbing is the PBO has said that the budget will actually cost 43,000 Canadians their jobs, but we hear otherwise from the Conservatives. In fact, this budget actually plans for unemployment to rise from the cuts that are being made to government, especially the scientific and research community. New Democrats oppose budget 2012 and its implementation, unless it is amended to focus on the priorities of Canadians, which is creating good quality and strengthening our health care system.

Turning to science and technology, I have been meeting with scientists, engineers, technologists and members of industry since appointed as the science and technology critic. I have done a lot of face-to-face meetings, I have spoken with people electronically and I have had the opportunity to visit a number of public and private facilities. The scientific community, and I mean this very broadly, not just natural scientists but also social scientists, engineers and technologists, is very concerned, and so am I, about the government's approach to science and technology. I will provide a few details especially as they concern this budget.

We have seen in report after report that one of our main strengths in terms of productivity in our country concerns the world-leading research done at our universities and government institutions, like the National Research Council. Many people may not know this, but almost 3% of the peer-reviewed papers published in Canada are produced by researchers at the National Research Council. This is a good fraction of what is produced worldwide. Peer-reviewed research is produced at universities but also at the NRC.

One of our strengths is our research output, but one of our main weaknesses is that Canadian companies are not investing in R and D at the same rate as companies located elsewhere in the world. This point was hammered home in the Jenkins report that we hear quoted in the House very often. Lack of investment in research and development has led to plummeting productivity levels as compared to the U.S. Our productivity is around 70% of U.S. productivity.

The Conservatives are right to view this is as a problem, but the solution to this problem of declining productivity is mind boggling. The Conservatives are trying to fix productivity rates that are really caused by low levels of private investment by Canadian firms and are planning to attack the part of the innovation supply chain that is performing well. The scientific community working in universities and government research organizations is really punching above its weight internationally. The government is shifting funding from these well-operating parts of our economy over to business, and that is a mistake.

The Conservatives are cutting hundreds of scientists from government rolls, they are closing world-class facilities, one of which I visited just the other day, they are radically changing the funding structures for scientists, both within government and without, and they are muzzling the government scientists who remain.

I have talked to researchers both in industry and outside of industry and in universities. I sat down with a panel of physicists the other day. The physicists said that what was developing in Canada was poisoning the culture, that scientists were afraid of speaking out because they were worried about having their funding cut or, worse, getting fired. This is a really dangerous thing to do. The Conservatives are attacking a scientific culture that has taken almost 100 years to build. For example, the National Research Council came in place in 1916. We were almost going to celebrate a centenary, but now we find this is under attack.

The National Research Council was considered the jewel of the Canadian research crown for many years. It is headed by Nobel Prize winners. It has brought us all kinds of inventions that started as just ideas and made it all the way to the factory floor and onto the shelves of consumers

The Minister of State for Science and Technology has said that he wants to take this venerable and well-respected research institution and turn it into a 1-800 concierge service for industry. Therefore, instead of winning Nobel Prizes, Nobel scientists will now hold the door open for industry and carry its bags. If I were a research scientist looking at where I would take my top level research, going to the National Research Council in its past glory would be great, I would get the funding and atmosphere that I need to work, but becoming a concierge or a bellhop is not really what I would be looking for.

Let us talk about the 124 NRC researchers who received their pink slips this year, 90 of them last week. If we think about the progress of a researcher, they get a BA after four years, a Masters in Science for two years, a PhD, a post-doctorate, to have to go and set up labs. We are talking about 15 to 20 years someone has invested in becoming a researcher. It is a portable skill, but it has to be located at an institution. What concerns me is people at the NRC who have come out of university and set up these labs, when they are given a pink slip, it is not like they go next door and start up another career. It is a major loss of investment. This really needs to be thought through before we go too much further down this line.

This fear of the change in culture has been expressed to me in many letters. The Minister of State for Science and Technology is familiar with this because I am copied on most of the letters he receives. They express fear and really want the government to slow down in terms of how it is hacking away at these various institutions.

I want to change now to a more specific matter, and that is the scientific research and experimental development tax credit. The government proposes to reduce the tax credit rate from 20% to 15% and this will particularly affect large businesses. It will eliminate the eligibility of capital expenses. Although it would save up to $500 million a year by making these changes, it has not made it over to any new program, or not all of it anyway. It is really just straight savings for the government and attacks businesses right where they live in the innovation field. This will hit the manufacturing sector hard and it is likely to drive firms to move their R and D activities to other countries that have better incentives.

Conservatives have done nothing to fix the complexity of the SR&ED tax credit, which I agree needs some adjustment but it is more in the administration of this tax credit rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Instead of reducing the credit for industry, it should be looking at administrative changes instead. The government has done nothing to reduce the complexity and overhead costs of applying for and administering the SR&ED tax credit.

The member for Burlington said earlier today that he was getting positive feedback from industry, but I have had a number of different comments and he should be aware because they came at the industry committee. For example, Declan Hamill, vice-president, Legal Affairs, Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., said when asked about the SR&ED tax credit:

From our perspective there are changes to the SHRED tax credits that have some potential negative impacts on our member companies.

Probably most serious, were the comments from RIM. Morgan Elliott, director of Government Relations for Research in Motion, which makes the Blackberry, said when I asked him directly what this change in the SR&ED tax credit would mean. “It cuts our support by one-third”. Here is the jewel in the private industry crown of technology in Canada that has been struggling lately, seems to be getting back on its feet, and what does the government do? It cuts one-third of its support with these changes.

It is hardly a ringing endorsement for these changes. I submit there are problems with the bill and the government should, at the very least, split out the SR&ED tax credit changes and refer them to the industry committee for further study.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, like the member, I was also troubled when I heard those comments from RIM at the industry committee.

I want to talk about another aspect of science and technology and Canada's satellite industry. In the first budget of the year we were expecting to see money for the final phase of development of the RADARSAT constellation mission, which is Canada's crown jewel of our satellite program. The money was not there. Now we have part 2 of the budget and the money is still not there.

We have had 31 job cuts at COM DEV, which is a large subcontractor. We have had hundreds of job losses at MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates. These are scientists and engineers losing their jobs because of the instability created by the government.

Tying into what the member said about the NRC and scientists and all the changes being made, does he have a comment to make about what kind of impact that has on our high tech industries?

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I did have the great pleasure of sitting down with the president of MDA to talk about RADARSAT specifically, and he was beside himself. There are really six phases to this contract. The government has agreed to the first five and cut the money for the final phase of the contract, which would put the satellites in the air over our Arctic, and it is only through satellite technology that we can do surveillance over the Arctic.

It is extremely disappointing that the Conservatives have chosen not to support the final stage of the RADARSAT satellites. I urge them to find a place in the budget to make this project go ahead.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. It is very interesting to hear the point of view of someone who has extensive knowledge of technology.

Having worked in research and development in a corporate setting, I know that the field desperately needs more support. Clearly, that is not what the Conservatives are prepared to offer.

I have a much more general question for the member about the form of today's bill. The Conservatives across the way keep telling us how important it is to do things the way they are because there is no time, because these measures must be taken as quickly as possibly, because they are minor measures and no big deal.

If these measures are so simple and obvious, and if these ideas are so good, then why not have a proper debate about them and hear from real experts? I do not see why we cannot treat each element separately. That would give all of us a better understanding of what is in this bill.

What does my colleague think the Conservatives are afraid of? Why did they introduce an omnibus bill like this?

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I really think this is an abuse of Parliament. The measures in the budget are important for Canadians, whatever we think of them. These really need to be debated.

In their effort to rush through measures through the industry committee, the latter's members seemed to be making a major error with the SR and ED tax credit. That is not just my opinion. The changes have been dismissed by RIM, by pharmaceutical companies, by Genome Canada. They all have great concerns about these changes to the tax credit.

We should just slow down a bit, split this up into a bunch of bills and look at them separately before we make a gigantic mistake.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, which I listened to carefully.

We have started talking about the budget implementation bill. We have gotten used to the Conservatives introducing huge omnibus bills to push through all kinds of legislation. MPs cannot do the work that Canadians elected them to do.

Does my colleague think that this practice is undemocratic?

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I really do not think Parliament was created for us to ask real questions and to get stock answers back. Bills are then forced through without any real debate before Canadians get a chance to look at the details. We should pause and try to respect the institution we are in.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about how Bill C-45 will benefit residents of Palliser, Saskatchewan and indeed all of Canada.

At the outset, I am proud to say that Canada is more financially secure than other economies in the world, thanks to the decisive and swift action taken by our government in 2008. Thankfully, Canada has one of the strongest fiscal positions in the world as shown by Fitch, Moody's, and Standard and Poor's ratings renewing Canada's AAA rating.

Since taking office in 2006, we have introduced many popular initiatives, including the tax-free savings account, pension income splitting, a tax credit for textbooks, the deduction for tradesmen's tools, and much more.

Additionally, over the past six years, Canadians have benefited from broad-based tax cuts, 140 tax cuts to be exact. These tax cuts have given families, individuals and businesses the flexibility to make the right choices for their own needs. In fact the average Canadian family now has an additional $3,100 in its pocket, thanks to these tax savings.

Our government will continue on this path of keeping taxes low, reducing red tape and other measures, so that businesses are free to grow. Here I would add that our economy has created nearly 820,000 net new jobs since the end of the recession, with 90% of them full-time.

However, our government realizes that some belt-tightening is required to protect against shocks in the global economy. To this end, under the leadership of our talented Minister of Finance, in March, our government introduced a comprehensive and forward-thinking action plan to create jobs, growth and prosperity over the long term.

Here I would point out that our jobs and growth bill does not raise taxes or cut transfers to seniors or other levels of government for health, education or social services. Our jobs and growth plan will respect the taxpayer dollars of individuals, families, trades people, businesses and seniors. Our jobs and growth plan will benefit today's population without transferring the burden to tomorrow's leaders.

Raising taxes or transferring the burden might be an easy solution that governments may have taken in the past, but we are thinking outside of the box and taking action to benefit all Canadians, not just those of a particular region.

To create our comprehensive and long-range plan, we held consultations with Canadians to seek solutions that would improve efficiency and reduce waste. On my part, I had an excellent discussion with business leaders in my riding this spring, and passed their ideas on to the Minister of Finance.

A cornerstone of our government is respect for taxpayer dollars. To that end, our government is taking landmark action to ensure that the pension plans of members of Parliament, senators and federal public sector workers are sustainable and financially responsible. My office has received significant correspondence calling for reforms to these pensions. I support these measures to bring these pensions in line with those in the private sector.

Next I would like to speak about creating jobs and filling job openings. I will begin by quoting Saskatchewan's finance minister, Ken Krawetz, who stated in regard to our economic action plan:

I'm quite encouraged by the initiatives that seem to be coming forward in the economy and training and employment.

In my view, his words carry a lot of weight since he knows the issues facing Saskatchewan better than anyone else.

Canada not only has a labour shortage but also has people looking for jobs. The shortage in skilled labour is very problematic in my home province, which has low unemployment rates of less than 5%. Indeed, I am pleased to see that Saskatchewan is experiencing strong growth.

To help remedy this disparity, we will increase funding for training, with a special focus on youth and older workers. Our jobs and growth bill has $50 million to help youth gain skills and experience in the workforce through the youth employment strategy. Thanks to this funding, I am pleased that approximately 3,000 young Canadians will be able to fill labour shortages while they get on-the-job experience in high demand fields, such as skilled trade or tourism.

Our jobs and growth act also has $6 million to expand the successful ThirdQuarter project to connect employers with experienced workers over 50 years of age who want to continue using their skills in the workforce. Additionally, we are investing significant funding to improve labour market information, which will ultimately help connect out of work Canadians with available jobs.

Without impacting the Saskatchewan residents and Canadians who are looking for jobs, we are taking action to fill gaps within our workforce. We are investing $150 million to repair and upgrade local infrastructure via the community infrastructure improvement fund. There are rinks, community halls, museums and other organizations that may benefit from this funding in my riding.

As we are all aware, the aging workforce will compound the labour shortage. Meanwhile, the average life expectancy of Canadians is rising. Given that the OAS system is completely funded by the government and not by the working population, I think everyone can agree that this demographic change creates serious challenges.

Our government was elected with a mandate to respond to the taxpayers. To that end, we will work to protect the financial security of tomorrow by gradually raising the age of eligibility for OAS.

Will this change affect seniors? I emphatically say no. Will this change affect those nearing retirement? Again, I emphatically say no. Since changes are necessary for the benefit of future generations, it is fitting that the changes will only affect recipients among future generations.

One of my constituents phrased it very well in writing. He said: “The changes are acceptable, as they will allow the next generation to prepare and thus manage their economies of scale accordingly”. I am proud to say that he further stated that this was good government at its best.

To help people prepare for the future, we will help Canadians saving for retirement through pooled registered pension plans and registered disability savings plans, in addition to the previously announced tax-free savings accounts.

Moving on, Canada's reservists support and rebuild communities in disaster situations here at home, as well as serving as reconnaissance troops in peacekeeping operations. In my home province, members of the Saskatchewan Dragoons have been and continue to be actively involved in United Nations peacekeeping operations in Cyprus, Bosnia, Afghanistan and more. I am also proud to say that the dragoons also helped combat the forest fires in British Columbia in 2003. Economic action plan 2012 will support Canadian reservists in the workforce, by helping to remove the barriers to hiring reservists and off-setting costs when they are called on for full-time duty.

This past Saturday evening while I was at a mess dinner with the local chapter of the Saskatchewan Dragoons, I was proud to be part of a government that supports our reservists.

In economic action plan 2012, our government has presented a plan focused on jobs and growth to chart a course for the long-term financial prosperity of all Canadians. This plan will support individuals, families, communities, tradespeople, seniors and veterans in Palliser and indeed across Canada.

I fully support the jobs and growth act, 2012 and ask all hon. members to join together toward building a stronger Canada and a stronger economy.

I humbly offer my appreciation for the chance to speak about how the implementation of this long-ranging and forward-thinking plan will benefit residents of Palliser, the land of the living skies, as well as all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech and I could not believe my ears. I had no choice but to rise here and address this.

My colleague talked about lowering taxes for large corporations. That means that workers' contributions to employment insurance will increase by 5¢ in 2013. Furthermore, the limit will increase from $45,000 to $47,000. This means the Conservatives will be taking about $1.3 billion out of Canadians' pockets. A tax increase should not be disguised like that.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question but I am not quite sure what she was asking. It seemed to me that she was saying there was taxation on fringe benefits for workers.

We certainly go on record as supporting full employment and supporting workers. We do not have any problem with that principle.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I would remind hon. members that it is questions and comments. Members sometimes pose questions but other times choose to make a comment instead.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie

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

Mr. Speaker, I refer to a comment from my hon. colleague. He said that he could say emphatically that changing the age from 65 to 67 for old age security would definitely not have an effect on seniors.

First of all, we know that the old age security program is sustainable without making changes to it at the moment, as the Auditor General told us. What about those seniors who, at age 65, are collecting old age security and the guaranteed income supplement?

Seniors have to be at a low-income level to collect GIS, which has a $15,000 a year impact. Over a two-year period, that $30,000 is of enormous significance to them. I wonder what the member has to say to those low-income Canadians who would be affected by this change.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am saying that there is time now to plan for the future. That time should be spent with individual people looking at financial responsibility in the future. We are bringing in the changes over a span of time that will give people a chance to put together their own financial world. If we are going to sustain this program, we have to do something to make it realistic, and two years is realistic.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Palliser for his great intervention on Bill C-45, which follows through on the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act.

Having been an educator, one of the things we need to do is continually focus on providing resources for post-secondary education in terms of skilled workers. In this new world, it seems most countries are in financial despair and yet Canada is strong and healthy. What we are doing in our budget for post-secondary education to help us maintain that through our skilled workers is of significance.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the issue my hon. colleague raises is very important as we have to fund our health and our educational programs.

I would refer the House to page 53 of Bill C-45. Members can see that there is $105 million over two years to support forestry innovation, $995 million over three years to support the Canadian innovation commercialization program, and it goes on and on.

I do not hear people mentioning these dollars, which we put together in the budget. It seems to have gotten by a lot of folks. I would also refer members to page 136 on expanded opportunities for aboriginal folks and to page 135 on improving insurance programs and information on jobs.

It's an easy read. If members have trouble, I taught reading in an elementary school for awhile and I could help them out.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. I believe the hon. member for Vancouver East is rising on a point of order.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Etobicoke North is the next to speak, so I hope she will bear with me for a moment.

I would like to seek unanimous consent to move the following motion: That, notwithstanding any order or usual practice of the House, clauses 269 to 298, related to changes to the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act be removed from Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, and do compose Bill C-47; that, Bill C-47 be entitled “an act to amend the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act”; and that, Bill C-47 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that, the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Health; that, Bill C-45 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order; that, Bill C-45 be reprinted as amended; and that, the law clerk and parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.

I am proposing this motion so that the Standing Committee on Health can properly study Bill C-45 as it relates to hazardous materials and make amendments. Mr. Speaker, we want to do our job in our committee and I ask that you seek unanimous consent.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Does the hon. member for Vancouver East have unanimous consent to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Etobicoke North.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to represent and serve the good people of Etobicoke North, where I was born and raised, and to fight the shameful cuts to the environment to be found in Bill C-45.

The government's record on the environment is atrocious, as recognized by its bottom of the barrel environmental performances. The 2008 climate change performance index ranked Canada 56th of 57 countries in terms of tackling emissions. In 2009 the Conference Board of Canada ranked Canada 15th of 17 wealthy industrialized nations on environmental performance. In 2010 Simon Fraser University and the David Suzuki Foundation ranked Canada 24th of 25 OECD nations on environmental performance.

The government learned nothing from last spring's hue and cry against the omnibus budget implementation bill, Bill C-38: concerned Canadians, demonstrations across the country, the 500 organizations that joined the Blackout Speak Out campaign to stand up for democracy and the environment, 3,200 pages of correspondence and extensive international criticism.

The voices of Canadians concerned about democracy, the environment and the health of our children and grandchildren has once again fallen on deaf ears.

This past week the government tabled the anti-democratic and draconian Bill C-45, its second omnibus budget implementation bill. The bill would alter the Indian Act and reduce protections contained in the Fisheries Act and the Navigable Waters Protection Act, foundational Canadian laws to steward a sustainable environment, clean water and health oceans. It would also weaken the Canada Labour Code in ways that were not even hinted at in the budget. In total, the bill takes aim at some 60 pieces of legislation.

Bill C-45 hides big changes to environmental laws, subverts democracy and weakens protection of water and ecosystems. West Coast Environmental Law describes the lowlights of Bill C-45 as follows.

The Navigable Waters Protection Act of 1882, considered Canada's first environmental law, has been changed to the Navigation Protection Act and dramatically limits the number of waterways protected. Of the roughly 32,000 lakes in Canada, just 97 lakes and 62 rivers will now be protected.

This means the construction of bridges, dams and other projects would be permitted on most waterways without prior approval under the act. It is important to note that the original budget says nothing about restricting federal controls over lakes and rivers. Astoundingly, however, pipelines are directly exempted from this law. Under the act, pipeline impacts on Canada's waterways will no longer be considered in environmental assessments.

According to Ecojustice's executive director Devon Page:

Simply put, lakes, rivers and streams often stand in the path of large industrial development, particularly pipelines. This bill, combined with last spring’s changes, hands oil, gas and other natural resource extraction industries a free pass to degrade Canada’s rich natural legacy....

It is important to remember that when the government came to power it inherited a legacy of balanced budgets but soon plunged the country into deficit before the recession ever hit. It is absolutely negligent and shameful that the government would now gut environmental safeguards in order to fast-track development and balance its books.

Other lowlights of Bill C-45 include giving industry the option to request that its existing commitments to protect fish habitat be amended or cancelled, or that it be let off the hook for promised compensation for lost or damaged habitat. It would also eliminate the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission, an independent body charged with making science-based decisions to protect Canadians from toxic chemicals and hazardous materials in the workplace.

Bill C-45 needlessly tinkers with the Fisheries Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 to correct obvious drafting mistakes made during the ramming through of Bill C-38. Changing the same bill twice in one year underlines the value of debating specific bills through appropriate committees.

Jessica Clogg, the executive director and senior counsel for West Coast Environmental Law, stated:

So much for the federal government’s promise that the bill would focus on budget implementation and contain no surprises.

The Bill C-45 ‘budget bill’ is a wolf in sheep’s clothing that will have major implications for the environment and human health.

John Bennett, executive director, Sierra Club Canada, said:

Today’s killing of the Navigable Waters Act, along with further gutting of what’s left of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and Fisheries Act, will inhibit the ability of Canadians to protect their natural environment for their children, grandchildren and future generations.

He went on to state:

This assault on the environment is deeply offensive and undemocratic. I don’t remember the Prime Minster campaigning in the last election on a platform of laying waste to the Canadian landscape.

Many of Canada's leading environmental organizations, including the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, the David Suzuki Foundation, Ecojustice, Environmental Defence, Équiterre, Greenpeace, Nature Canada, Pembina Institute, Sierra Club Canada, West Coast Environmental Law and WWF Canada, issued a joint statement decrying the fact that, once again, the federal government is proposing to make significant changes to environmental legislation without proper democratic debate.

The government has repeatedly abused Parliament by ramming through outrageous omnibus bills. For example, two years ago the government introduced the 880-page omnibus bill, a grab bag of bills that the government wanted to pass quickly. In fact, it was half of the entire workload of Parliament from the previous year. As a result, the government was severely condemned for turning the legislative process into a farce.

Most recently the government introduced Bill C-38, the 400-plus page omnibus budget implementation bill. Through the bill, the government sprung sweeping changes on our country, affecting everything from employment insurance, environmental protection, immigration and old age security, to even the oversight that charities receive. None of these changes were in the Conservative platform. They were rushed into law by “an arrogant majority government that's in a hurry to impose its agenda on the country”.

According to one newspaper, omnibus bills are “political sleight-of-hand and message control, and it appears to be an accelerating trend. These shabby tactics keep Parliament in the dark, swamp MPs with so much legislation that they can’t absorb it all, and hobble scrutiny. This is not good, accountable, transparent government.”

The government's actions reek of hypocrisy. In 1994, the right hon. member for Calgary Southwest and today's Prime Minister criticized omnibus legislation, suggesting that the subject matter of such bills is so diverse that a single vote on the content would put members in conflict with their own principles, and that dividing the bill into several components would allow members to represent the views of their constituents on each part of the bill. The right hon. member is now using the very tactics he once denounced. It is a shame that he changed his tune when he was elected to the highest office in the land.

Canadians should be deeply concerned by yet another of the government's end runs around the democratic process and the potential for even more destruction of critical habitat and greater pollution. The government did not campaign in the last election on gutting environmental protection. Canadians should therefore rise up, have their voices heard, and stop the Prime Minister's destruction of laws that protect the environment and the health and safety of Canadians, our communities, economy and livelihoods. Canadians are entitled to expect much more than they are witnessing today in the protection of our environment and democratic values, which our beautiful country was built on.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned gutting the Fisheries Act, changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act and numerous other environmental protection measures that were significantly impacted, both in Bill C-38, and again in this budget implementation act. She also speculates that the government wants to fast track its major industrial agenda, such as, the Enbridge pipeline project in British Columbia.

Could my hon. colleague comment on that?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we had a former Conservative minister responsible for the current Fisheries Act, who came to talk about the last budget implementation bill when it was put through the finance committee. He stated:

This is a covert attempt to gut the Fisheries Act, and it's appalling that they should be attempting to do this under the radar.

He also said:

They are totally watering down and emasculating the Fisheries Act...they are making a Swiss cheese out of [it].

At the finance committee, he reported:

The bottom line...is to take your time and do it right. To bundle all of this into a budget bill, with all its other facets, is not becoming of a Conservative government, period.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, I met with a group of manufacturers, and they gave me a booklet, Our Future, talking about an action plan for Canada, driving investment, creating jobs, growing exports. They have a record of generating a lot of money toward our economy: $166 billion in GDP, $280 billion in exports.

Throughout the booklet they demonstrate that manufacturing matters, and they talk a lot about productivity. They talk a lot about investment, but they also talk a lot about streamlining regulations.

In one area they were talking about a recent study on macroeconomic impacts of federal regulation. The manufacturing sector concluded that 2,183 unique regulations have been imposed upon the manufacturing sector, with regulation-imposed costs across the entire sector. They say that the output could be reduced by $200 billion to $500 billion.

I want to know if the member has met with the manufacturers, the CMC, to talk to them about streamlining regulations. The CMC believes that science-based research is important, but it is important to streamline regulations.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there were a number of questions in there. I did hear at the end about science-based policy. This is a government that has a war on science, a war on the environment.

The government has cut the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory in the far north, which looks at ozone, at climate change. This year we have had the greatest melting, ever, of sea ice in the high Arctic. Last year, an ozone hole was discovered that was two million square kilometres.

Why would the government cut a research station at a time when major environmental changes are taking place?

We also are seeing the potential loss of the Experimental Lakes Area, 58 lakes which are unique in the world, doing ecosystem-based research. We are also seeing the potential cut of the Kluane Lake Research Station. These research stations could be kept open for about $1.5 million to $2 million.

There is a war on science. There is a war on the environment. The government should be striking a balance between the economy and the environment; they are two sides of the same coin.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to address the House today and to speak on Bill C-45, the jobs and growth act, 2012.

This important bill continues the path laid out by our government in the spring to support job creation, economic growth and prosperity for all Canadians in the short and long term.

It would be easy for us to become complacent with the relative stability and success of the Canadian economy in comparison to many of our global partners. We could continue to brag about Canada being a world leader in job growth, financial stability and a strong presence in the world. However, in doing so, we would be doing ourselves no favours.

The global economy remains fragile, especially in Europe and the United States, our largest trading partners. Canada is not immune to such global economic challenges coming from outside of our border, and careful steps must be taken to ensure our economic recovery does not stall or begin to falter.

The steps being taken in Bill C-45 will ensure that Canada remains on the right track. In my home riding of Brampton—Springdale, and in the city of Brampton as a whole, over 80% of businesses are designated as small or medium, with fewer than 50 employees.

Under this bill, the highly successful hiring credit for small businesses would be extended for one year. The hiring credit of up to $1,000 against the increase in EI premiums paid by employers helps small businesses hire the workers they need to expand and grow their operations. More importantly, it helps small businesses create jobs for those living in their community.

I have had the opportunity to meet with a number of entrepreneurs operating small businesses in my riding who have benefited first-hand from the hiring credit for small businesses. They are among the 536,000 employers nationwide who are eligible for this credit. Each of the entrepreneurs I have met has spoken highly of the credit, which has eased some of the additional costs of bringing new staff onboard.

The positive effect of the new jobs, created in part by the credit, goes beyond just helping employers expand and grow their businesses. Each job created represents an individual receiving a new employment opportunity, one more person who is given a chance to return to the workforce. When unemployment is low and Canadians have access to well-paying jobs to support their families, the entire country benefits.

This bill also trims much of the unnecessary red tape faced by small business employers, allowing them to focus on managing and growing their businesses. It simplifies the calculation for statutory holiday pay, eliminating the multitude of different formulas used to achieve the same end.

This budget reduces the tax compliance burden for small businesses and makes a number of significant administrative improvements at the Canada Revenue Agency.

This bill will also implement our government's plan to facilitate and improve interprovincial and cross-border trade. The implementation of the agreement on internal trade will build a stronger economic union between the provinces and eliminate barriers to internal trade and labour mobility by incorporating enforceable penalties against governments for failures to comply.

The 2006 census reported that manufacturing, transportation and warehousing, and retail trade were the three largest industries in Brampton. Many of the firms in those industries are heavily involved in the cross-border transport of material and goods, with much of that trade coming across the U.S. border in Windsor.

The Windsor-Detroit corridor is Canada's most important trade artery and the busiest Canada-U.S. commercial border crossing, handling almost 30% of the Canada-U.S. surface trade. An efficient and secure trade corridor is essential to the economies of the U.S. and Canada.

The Detroit River international crossing would facilitate the movement of people and goods between Canada and the U.S., by ensuring that there is sufficient border-crossing capacity to handle the projected goals in cross-border trade and traffic in the Windsor-Detroit trade corridor.

It would also provide a much-needed crossing alternative at the busiest Canada-U.S. commercial border crossing and create thousands of jobs and opportunities on both sides of the border. This bill would allow for the project to be fast-tracked. It would clarify a number of governance issues and ensure continued efficiency, security, safety and mobility at the Detroit-Windsor border crossing, while ensuring that appropriate environmental mitigation measures are met and in full compliance with federal law.

To continue to help families, we are improving the registered disability savings plan. Parents who have saved money in an RESP for a child with a disability would be able to transfer investment income earned in an RESP to a registered disability savings plan on a tax-deferred rollover basis, if the plan shares a common beneficiary and if the beneficiary can reasonably be expected to be prevented from pursuing post-secondary education due to his or her disability.

The bill would also implement plans to help Canadians save for retirement by laying out the tax framework behind the pooled registered pension plan implemented this spring. These plans would provide accessible large-scale and low-cost pension options to employers, employees and the self-employed. Our government is also improving the administration of the Canada pension plan, clarifying guidelines on contribution for certain benefits, determining minimum qualifying periods for delayed applicants for a disability pension and clarifying recognition of divorces granted outside of Canada for the purposes of credit splitting.

Bill C-45 would also close a number of tax loopholes, phasing out subsidies and tax credits for oil, gas and mineral exploration. However, it would expand tax relief for investment in clean energy generation equipment, encouraging investment in more efficient means of energy.

When we stood in this place in the spring, our government had helped the Canadian economy create more than 700,000 net new jobs since July 2009. With the job numbers reported by Stats Canada at the beginning of this month, that number now stands at more than 820,000 net new jobs since July 2009, most of which are full-time positions in the private sector.

Budget 2012 would keep us on the right track to return to balanced budgets in the medium term, keep taxes for individuals and small business low, and create jobs and economic prosperity in the long term.

Bill C-45 is the next step in the process of Canada's economic recovery and plan for future growth. I encourage all members in the House to support the bill.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member his view on the two-tier pension system that the bill before us would create, as well as the fact that younger workers entering the public service would simply not have the same kind of pension as their parents, and the way in which that truly disadvantages a whole generation of Canadians.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind all members on the other side of the House that this budget was put together having consultations with thousands and thousands of Canadians, small businesses, other organizations and stakeholders. It actually gives an opportunity to individuals who are self-employed, who did not previously have a pension plan that they could use when they were able to retire at a later age.

As a matter of fact, when I talk to my constituents and other Canadians when I am travelling, one of the things I hear is that Canadians in general applaud the efforts the government has taken in addressing issues that needed to be addressed.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Brampton—Springdale for a great overview of some of the initiatives in our jobs and growth plan for prosperity. It hearkens back to our initial 2006 advantage Canada, where we focused on tax relief, on red tape reduction, on supporting innovation through post-secondary education and so much more that he mentioned and at which he did a great job.

I want to emphasize that since that 2006 economic plan, we have not only tabled budgets but successive budget implementation acts, which means that we have had days and days of debate in the House and now, with this particular budget implementation act, we are actually going to have multiple committees take a look at it. This is going to be a robust debate on these initiatives, where democracy is really going to flourish. At the same time, we need to make sure these initiatives get enacted, so we support this economy and do not have the kind of experience as has happened in Europe and south of the border.

How important is it to get these initiatives in place so they can get working to stimulate our economy and continue to create jobs for Canadians?

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for a wonderful question and for working hard on behalf of his constituents and representing them well in the House.

As I mentioned previously, the government and members on this side of the House are always, on a daily basis, talking to Canadians, looking for ways, listening to their issues, listening to their concerns, considering how they can be better addressed and how we can better represent and serve them and their best interests. The government continues to do a great job.

It was no accident that the government has played a very important role by introducing these economic action plans and has created more than 820,000 net new jobs, especially when we see the other parts of the world where countries and other economies are still suffering. We still have a lot of work to do in Canada, but we are on the right track. We are serving Canadians, and that is what we are here to do and will continue to do. I would encourage all members on the other side of the House to support this budget. It is a wonderful piece of legislation.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my constituents are wondering where all those jobs are. My constituents are asking why it is that the government has decided it is going to beat up on them. It is a shame that the government again shows such lack of faith in Canadians. It is a shame that the government feels it is a waste of time to engage Canadians in the discussion as to what is good for them and what they feel they need. It is a shame the government is so afraid of dissenting opinion, dissenting voices that say they might have a different way of doing things or maybe even a better way.

Is it not the function of this place to offer that dissenting opinion, to offer an objective opinion that differs, maybe, from the government's? My opinion, which I think I share with the rest of my colleagues in this House, is it is not a situation of “it is my ball so you play by my rules”. In this House, the government, the official opposition and the other opposition parties are elected to represent Canadians, to represent their voices, not to rubber-stamp what the government members feel is the ideal way to do things.

As far as Bill C-45 is concerned, this budget implementation bill, the Conservatives seem to want to make Canadians believe that everything they are talking about in this bill was in the budget, while it was not. The budget is a series of numbers and calculations. However, what the government is missing is that it is not only what one achieves but how one achieves it. This is what I will focus on today.

I remember, upon first entering this House, one of the first questions asked after the throne speech was how the Conservatives were going to achieve these goals that they had set for themselves; how they were going to balance the budget by 2014; how they were going to make these cuts; who was going to be affected by these cuts. The response we got was silence.

We kept asking those questions and kept getting silence, until we came across Bill C-38, the Trojan horse bill that, under the guise of a budget bill, included over 200 changes that gutted the Environmental Protection Act. How is that a budget? It went on to horrify Canadians with the sweeping changes that the Conservatives made in Bill C-38, with nary a word of consultation, at least not with the other side. Maybe there was consultation with friends, consultation about how this bill would help friends of the Conservatives, but again, not with the people of my riding.

We saw changes to the EI Act, which hurt more than they helped. We saw changes to health care. We saw changes, as I said, to the Environmental Protection Act. I would venture a guess that not a whole lot of people sat there and said it would be a good idea to just destroy the Environmental Protection Act.

So now we have Bill C-38's evil little brother, Bill C-45, which continues the work that the government proudly stands up and says is a good thing.

As I said earlier, there are some good things in this bill, and members have heard many of my colleagues stand to request unanimous consent on motions to separate out some of these good things in the bill, which have all been refused. Why?

If they are good things, why not set those aside and move them forward? Instead, we get the party line, that “If you fight me, you fight my gang”, as they say in Montreal.

We are here to do a job for Canadians and it is important that we listen to Canadians. On this side of the House we are also the voice of Canadians. Yet we have another time allocation motion limiting the discussion of the bill and all the very intricate aspects of this monster bill to just a few days.

We have been told that the Conservatives have graciously agreed to allow some of these things to go off to committee, but we all know what happens in committee. Not a lot gets through as far as amendments are concerned. To us, it seems to be more of a publicity stunt when the Conservatives say they will let things go to committee, because Canadians want to know that their interests are being held to a high standard. That is not happening with the bill.

How we do things is extremely important to Canadians. There is a lack of transparency, a lack of letting Canadians know what is going on before it happens. What is the point of saying what is going on after the fact? Why are we voting on a bill that has serious problems rather than addressing those problems through consultation before it becomes a bill and by tweaking it in committee in an open and transparent way?

It does seem that the government is afraid of dissenting opinions, dissenting opinions that help balance out what we are giving to Canadians. Is it not our obligation to make sure that when a bill gets to the point of ascension, it is done knowing that it has been vetted in a proper way and the best way for Canadians?

We NDP members have been accused of using tactics to slow down the process. We have been told that we do not vote for good things for Canadians. I would like to clear that up. We do vote for good things for Canadians when we are given the opportunity, but when we are thrown an omnibus bill that has serious issues, wrapping up those little jewels, for lack of a better way of putting it, is problematic.

It is a shame that the government decides that it wants to play politics with Canadians' lives rather than putting forward legislation that helps Canadians, and putting forward legislation in a positive way, in a way that is fitting for this House, and not using tactics like time allocation and overpowering our committees, but letting the voice of all Canadians and this whole House, which represents the voice of all Canadians, have an opportunity to be heard and to put forth an idea that might make this bill a little more palatable.

We have heard many times about the Prime Minister, who spoke out against omnibus bills, but when asked he has no answer for us as to why he has used these multiple times.

I ask this House, the government, to think about the how this is being done--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. The hon. member has completed his allocated time.

I would remind hon. members to watch the chair from time to time to see how the time is going along. It gives us a chance to keep members in the loop that way.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned on a number of occasions that the government was afraid of honest debate. I have to admit that I have not lost any sleep at all regarding the debate on the budget implementation act. Again, it is one portion of the entire budget that was tabled.

I remind Canadians that when we have an economic plan that has multiple budget implementation acts, it means there will be many days of debate here in the House and at committee, which are continuing now. In fact, multiple committees will look at this budget implementation act.

I would ask my hon. colleague what his concerns are with the bill. He mentioned “concern” multiple times, but not specifically. Is it the tax reductions that he is concerned about? Is it the fact that Canadian citizens would have less money taken out of their pockets and that pensions would be fairer for public servants? What aspects exactly is the hon. member talking about?

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my concern is that the bill's format does not allow for true democratic discussion. Hiding little jewels in a monster bill that guts acts and laws that have nothing to do with the budget is sneaky to say the least.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for the wonderful observations in his speech.

Along with the gutting of environmental legislation, particularly with respect to lakes and rivers, I notice that the government is withdrawing its support for the Experimental Lakes Area, one of the world's most pristine environmentally protected areas. It has allowed tremendous research on mercury in rivers, the effects of global warming, acid rain, et cetera.

It only costs $2 million a year to maintain the Experimental Lakes Area. Clearly, giving up that asset is of no benefit. In fact, it is emasculating any opportunity we have to conduct important environmental research.

I wonder if the member could enlighten us a little more on the removal of funding from the Experimental Lakes Area by the Conservative government through the budget bill.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it goes to what I was saying about the fear of dissenting opinion. Science, for the most part, is not always very supportive of the business and commercial end of an idea.

I think this withdrawal of support goes to the image, for lack of a better way of putting it, of the government taking the side of business and profit making over sound science. However, Canadians benefit both from the economy as well as science and learning.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question has to do with the environment.

As we know, changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act mean that thousands of waterways will no longer be protected.

One unprotected waterway runs into another waterway and so on. Sooner or later, that water makes its way into the water table or the ocean. What impact does my colleague think this will have on future generations and on sustainable development?

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, again, this is the crux of the problem. Does it speed up the economic reasons for a company or organization wanting to build over an unprotected lake by not having this Navigable Waters Protection Act in place?

It would create a situation where business has the opportunity to weigh its own interests on whether to circumvent prevention and protection laws or needs.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on what matters to Canadians: jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

Since 2006, our government has supported the security and prosperity of all Canadians, promoted Canadian businesses and made investments in job creation. When the global economic crisis hit, the previous actions by our government helped Canada avoid a deep and long-lasting recession.

Our government's response to the crisis was both timely and targeted, and was one of the strongest responses to the global recession among the G7 countries. However the recovery process is not complete, and there are many challenges and uncertainties still confronting our economy today.

Bill C-45 takes important and strategic steps to address these challenges and ensure the sustainability of public finances and social programs for both current and future generations. In Bill C-45, our government is focusing on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity through investments in business, infrastructure, trade, families and communities.

All Canadians are sure to benefit from the provisions in Bill C-45, as I will outline in my remaining time.

Our government believes it is important to assist small Canadian businesses so they can focus on what matters: growth and job creation. We are doing this by extending the hiring credit for small business. This is a temporary credit of up to $1,000 that helps alleviate the costs of additional hiring for approximately 536,000 employees. This will reduce the 2012 payroll costs of small business by approximately $205 million, an astonishing saving that I know small businesses in my riding of Oxford will appreciate.

This initiative is in addition to our commitment to small business owners to reduce red tape by implementing the one-for-one rule; reducing the administrative tax burden on small businesses by enhancing the Canada Revenue Agency's my business account portal; and doubling the threshold for eligibility to use the GST-HST streamlined accounting methods; and enhancing the predictability of the scientific research and experimental development tax incentive program. It is good news all around for small business owners.

Our government understands the important role that Canadian farmers play in our country. They not only provide nutritious and delicious food for Canadians and people around the world, but they also provide numerous job opportunities for the Canadian economy. The importance of farmers and their contributions to society can be seen in my riding of Oxford. Every season, we are lucky to enjoy the various fruits, vegetables, meat and dairy products that our Oxford farmers produce.

Oxford and Canadian farmers will be happy to hear that in budget 2012 we are assisting hard-working farmers by investing $50 million to help Canadian farmers remain on the cutting edge of agricultural innovations. We are also providing tax relief to reduce the costs of new investments in processing machinery and equipment, and $24 million to fund national biosecurity and best practices initiatives to combat hog diseases.

In Bill C-45 our government is also making amendments to the Canada Grain Act to streamline and update the operation of the Canadian Grain Commission by reducing costs and better aligning the commission with the needs of the grain sector. This includes a $44 million investment as the commission continues to transition to a more sustainable funding model. This will create a more competitive environment for our farmers and improve their bottom line. No matter what type of farming Canadians are employed in, they will surely benefit from the support of our government.

The Canadian manufacturing industry and its workers is one of the key engines of Canada's economy, as it represents a vital source of jobs and economic growth for many communities, including my riding of Oxford.

Since 2006, our government has proudly supported the manufacturing sector by lowering business taxes to 15%, eliminating the job-killing corporate surtax and introducing the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance tax relief to help manufacturers become more competitive when upgrading their machinery and equipment.

The manufacturing sector has seen strong results due to our government support, and this can be seen in my riding of Oxford.

In March of this year, Toyota announced that it would be increasing Rav4 production at its Woodstock plant from 150,000 annual capacity to 200,000. This increase will result in 400 new jobs. That is great news for the people of Oxford and the Canadian economy as a whole.

I might say there will be a fine announcement at the CAMI GM plant in Oxford tomorrow about a milestone that the plant has reached.

On this side of the House we want to continue with these types of results with the implementation of budget 2012. That is why we are investing $500 million to support venture capital activities, extending the domestic powers of Export Development Canada to provide financing to support Canadian manufacturers and other exporters and $110 million to double support to manufacturers and other entrepreneurs through the industrial research assistance program.

I look forward to hearing many more success stories that are sure to come as we continue to support our manufacturers with budget 2012.

In addition to our government's investments in key industries, we are also facilitating increased trade by strengthening the Trade Act. Bill C-45 would facilitate the construction of the urgently needed bridge along Canada's most important trade artery, the Windsor-Detroit corridor.

Our government will continue to work closely with the state of Michigan, the United States government and the province of Ontario on the Detroit River international crossing project. This project is consistent with the Government of Canada's economic agenda, given its importance for Canada's long-term economic prosperity, growing international trade and investment and the creation of jobs.

The new border crossing will facilitate the movement of people and goods between Canada and the U.S. by ensuring that there is sufficient border crossing capacity to handle projected growth in cross-border trade and traffic in the Windsor-Detroit trade corridor. It will also provide a much needed crossing alternative to the busiest Canada-U.S. commercial border crossing and create thousands of jobs and opportunities on both sides of the border, while at the same time ensuring border security and safety. Canadians can be sure that our government will always support beneficial trade opportunities for the Canadian economy.

Our government is also ensuring the safety of all Canadians by updating the Customs Act. As part of the beyond the border action plan on perimeter security and economic competitiveness, the Government of Canada is working to better screen travellers so security threats can be stopped ahead of time. The changes to the Customs Act will support the interactive advance passenger information initiative outlined in the action plan. This initiative will allow the Canada Border Security Agency to take steps to prevent high-risk or improperly documented travellers from boarding a plane destined for Canada, which will also reduce costs associated with removing inadmissible individuals from Canada.

We are also implementing the integrated cargo security initiative, which will harmonize the security requirements for cargo between Canada and the United States. The pre-screening of cargo will help save time for both businesses and the government by significantly reducing the need for re-inspection of cargo between the two countries and will ensure that high-risk cargo does not reach Canada. Our government is protecting Canadians both at home and abroad.

Families are the cornerstone of Canadian society. Our government believes in supporting families and that is why we have made huge investments since 2006 to help families save money and live healthier and happier lives. We have done this through the introduction of various initiatives, including the children's fitness tax credit, the children's arts tax credit, the family caregiver tax credit, the first time homebuyers tax credit, the registered disability savings plan, the working income tax benefit and the child tax credit.

Due to our government's strong record of tax relief, a Canadian family is now saving over $3,100, a truly amazing saving. Families can use their savings toward investments, vacations, education or recreation. The possibilities are just endless.

In Bill C-45 we are helping families by improving the registered disability savings plan, helping Canadians save for retirement by implementing a tax framework for pooled registered pension plans and improving the administration of the Canada pension plan.

We are also respecting taxes paid by our hard-working Canadian families by taking landmark action to ensure that the pension plans for members of Parliament, senators and federal public sector employees are financially responsible and broadly consistent with the pension products offered by other jurisdictions as well as fair relative to those offered in the private sector.

We are closing tax loopholes that have been open for far too long and eliminating duplication to ensure that Canadian taxpayer dollars are put to good use.

I am proud of the investments and initiatives that our government is putting in place in Bill C-45. We are getting things done for Canadians as we focus on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. I encourage all members to join us as we support Canadians by voting in favour of Bill C-45.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the changes being made to the Canada Grain Act. He may not be aware but hundreds of jobs in inward inspection are going to be lost. The people doing those jobs ensure that western wheat going out for either domestic consumption or export coming to port or at different linkages throughout is both the quality and quantity that farmers want it to be. As inward inspection goes as a result of Bill C-45, the concern is not only will hundreds of jobs be lost, but farmers will be short-changed. That is really a concept that stands in polar opposition to what the member said.

I would be keen to hear him comment on the real facts of the changes to the Grain Act.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, some of the real consequences of the changes to the Grain Act are there has never been more grain moved in Canada and there has never been more money come back into Canada as a result of those changes.

Farmers finally have a choice and it truly is an opportunity. This is a country of choice and for far too long farmers had absolutely no choice.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it always confounds me, and I think Canadians as a whole, that whenever the Conservative government talks about prosperity, it is always at the expense of the environment. It has gutted environmental legislation under Bill C-38 and it will do it again in Bill C-45. It is getting rid of legislation that protects our lakes and rivers, reducing it to a mere less than 100 lakes and less than 100 rivers that will remain protected. It is getting rid of its investment in the Environmental Lakes Area. This is a pristine area, used for study. There is nowhere like it in the world, except Canada. It costs a mere $2 million a year to maintain the area.

Why does the government feel it necessary to emasculate environmental legislation in the hope of thinking that it is somehow going to generate prosperity?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a rather interesting comment. The member starts off by saying that Conservatives are always doing all this damage to the environment. I wish he would turn around to the hon. member sitting behind him and ask who was identified as the greenest prime minister in the history of the country. He would find it was a Conservative prime minister, Brian Mulroney.

His colleague behind him would be more than happy to tell the member about that. The acid rain treaty, signed under that prime minister's time, is landmark. Some of these things that he is talking about are really beyond the pale in many respects to the issue.

I looked at the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The member is the critic for agriculture. Finally, farmers now have something with which they can deal with their drainage ditches and small bridges in rural Ontario and Canada. It is high time we moved to some of these things.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Minister of State (Finance)]

Mr. Speaker, I will first clarify and answer the question from the member for Churchill. Farmers were actually consulted on this change. Farmers actually want this change. Farmers, when they deliver their grain, they no longer own it. Therefore, it does not make any sense for farmers to be paying for inward inspection. It is that simple. I would encourage her to speak to some farmers.

The hon. member just spoke very briefly about the importance of the Detroit river international crossing. I know it is close to his region. He probably has a better understanding than I do of how important it is. Could he explain a bit more about the importance of that crossing that we are working on in this budget implementation act?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we all think our ridings are unique. Oxford has a lot of agricultural products, a lot of which are exported to the United States. More important, we have two automotive plants, a Toyota plant and a GM Cami plant. They export 90% of their product to the United States. When those bridges are tied up, that bridge in particular, the costs are astronomical. It slows down production and hinders job opportunities for Canadians. This budget is about that. It is about job opportunities, employment for Canadians and fairness.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-45.

I want to focus a little on the environmental impacts of various provisions, but I want to start with what concerns me to a great deal.

The bill is supposed to be all about creating jobs and generating prosperity. In fact, anybody who has been able to obtain some information from the government, which it is loath to releasing, any of the experts, the PBO for example, on the impact of the provisions of the budget bill that was brought down last spring has estimated we would be looking at nearly 100,000 jobs lost as a direct result of the implementation of this particular bill.

Not only that, the government would be making widespread wholesale changes to environmental protections that exist in various legislation, such as the Canadian Environmental Assessment Review Act, the Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Act. A number of pieces of legislation that provide oversight for projects, for development, for activity throughout the country, will be removed and that causes considerable concern.

Listening to members opposite talk about the bridge over the Detroit River or other projects, I hearken back to the Sydney tar ponds. I heard today in the news that the last contract has been awarded for the cleanup of the tar ponds in Sydney.

The tar ponds is a notable environmental spot that resulted from steel making over more than 100 years in Sydney, in Cape Breton. Government after government felt that it was sufficient to make steel to create jobs to do whatever we wanted to do with the environment, to get rid of waste, to spoil the earth, the air and the water. Rivers were completely ruined and covered up as a result of what the steel making process did.

Nearly $500 million of taxpayer money was taken, not the people who actually made off like bandits as a result of the opportunity to make steel in Cape Breton over those 100-and-some-odd years. It was the taxpayers who ended up paying as a result of the fact that government after government, both federally and provincially, failed to provide the oversight.

It feels to me like we are going back to the future. We are rolling back the clock in our country. The government has decided that it wants to export oil and bitumen and it will see those pipelines built, over as many water courses as needs to happen, as quickly as possible, without any oversight. That causes me and members on this side some considerable concern.

Not only does the government bring in this second omnibus bill, which we are going to be forced, with one set of votes, to vote on, rumour has it that it is going to break off some of the provisions in the bill and send them to committee, but we still are going be faced with one bill that we will be voting for or against at the end of the day.

As a result of public pressure, the government is going to allow for greater discussion. However, it is clear that the Conservatives have no intention of making any changes to the bill. That is why members on this side continue to move motions to try to get the government to split off some important aspects of the bill.

One issue that is particularly burdensome and troublesome with the bill is the change, in fact the removal of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Canada has over 32,000 lakes and rivers, and under this proposed budget bill only 97 lakes and 62 rivers are identified as significant. Why is that important? I heard a member opposite a moment ago say that the changes made to this act were important for farmers so they could plow over ditches in their field. It has nothing to do with ditches. That was the first budget bill last spring when that was allowed to happen; it allowed developers and others to get bulldozers and plow over the ditches.

This has to do with lakes and rivers. It is going to leave thousands of waterways without protection. Conservatives are even walking away from the majority of Canada's 37 designated Canadian heritage rivers. That means that a couple of heritage rivers in Nova Scotia, one of them being the Margaree, which is part of Margaree-Lake Ainslie River system, where Atlantic salmon and trout flourish in incredibly pristine water, could potentially be allowed to have roads, bridges or other projects that interfere with this river and this watershed without the requirement for permits.

It is the same thing for the Shelburne River, which begins in the Tobeatic wilderness park. It is part of the Mersey River system. It is an important river system for the Mi'kmaw. It has been used for millennia, and now it is no longer under protection. The government does not seem to understand how important these rivers, lakes and the environment are to Canadians. Our job on this side is to make those points and to bring that information to the attention of Canadians. As I indicated earlier, we are going to do that by continuing to move motions to try to split off various portions of the bill, so not only do they get proper debate, but they get an opportunity to have a vote.

My time is nearly over. I want to move a motion. I would like to seek unanimous consent to move the following motion: That notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, clauses 173 to 178 related to changes to the fisheries act be removed from Bill C-45, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures and do compose Bill C-47; that Bill C-47 be entitled “an act to amend the fisheries act and the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act; that bill C-47 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans; that Bill C-45 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order; that Bill C-45 be reprinted as amended; and that the law clerk and parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.

I am proposing this motion as indicated so we will have the opportunity, not only to discuss the changes being proposed, debate them and hear witnesses, but to have an opportunity to vote on these specific amendments. I, therefore, request said unanimous consent.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Does the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for drawing attention to the seemingly inexplicable choices of what rivers are now covered by the Navigable Waters Protection Act, to be renamed the navigation protection act, and what ones are abandoned. Clearly, something in the order of 98% to 99% of all internal waterways in Canada are now to see a full-on retreat from federal constitutional authority. The provinces cannot step up to fill the void because of constitutional law; only the federal government is responsible for navigation on waterways in this country. Yet, members of the Conservative Party who speak in the House tell us not to worry, Canadian common law will still apply to protect navigation. That means if people want to protect their rights to use the waterways, they have to go to court.

What does the hon. member think of that?

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

Mr. Speaker, what the government is proposing to do with respect to these important watercourses and waterways, I find appalling. I have had the opportunity to talk to a number of organizations. I was in Alberta this past weekend where I had the opportunity to talk to an organization that is concerned about the watershed it is responsible for. In particular, the Bow River will be covered under this particular act but the Oldman River will not, and the two are completely interconnected. People are asking themselves what the rationale is behind this and, more importantly, what the damage is going to be as a result of this legislation and the removal of oversight and protection.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has highlighted a number of key issues to the BIA. My question is on employment, which he referenced as a major issue.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has stated that this budget would cost 43,000 Canadians their jobs and that the budget actually plans for unemployment to rise. If we combine that with the previous rounds of cuts, the PBO projects a total of 102,000 jobs lost. I wonder if my colleague could comment on this.

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

Mr. Speaker, provisions of this bill are particularly onerous for the reasons he cited, in terms of the direct jobs that are going to be lost.

The other part of the bill really puts it to workers. Whether we call them private sector or public sector workers, they are workers who are supporting families, communities and making a contribution to the economy of this country. The government, as a result of changes to the pension plan for public sector workers is in effect rolling back wages. Pensions are nothing but foregone wages. That is exactly what they are. They are freely negotiated, and there are trade-offs made during negotiations. Pensions are part of the compensation package. What the government is asking us to do is to unilaterally impose a rollback in the area of 25% to 30% on public sector workers in this country.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives say they held public consultations regarding this bill. If the Conservatives had consulted first nations, such as the Mi'kmaq people in my colleague's riding, does he think they would have agreed with the changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, for instance?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an absolutely perfect question because I have talked with the officials at the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs, the traditional governing structure for the Mi'kmaq in the Atlantic provinces, and there has not been any consultation.

Likewise, I spoke to the Thames River watershed conservation society on Thursday of last week, which is responsible for 410 kilometres of watershed as a volunteer organization. It has not been consulted.

I spoke to Trout Unlimited Canada on Friday in Alberta. It had not been consulted about the changes to the act that directly affect its area of interest. In the case of the aboriginal community, the changes directly affect its treaty and aboriginal rights.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for the opportunity to be able to put some comments on the record. When we listen to all of the speeches, I understand that the role of opposition members is to criticize the government and to try very hard to get elected in the next election. However, a stronger role for all of us in the House is to pay very close attention to what will build and support our country.

Over 820,000 new jobs have been created since July 2009. Our country has the strongest job creation record in the G7. That is amazing. For the fifth straight year, the World Economic Forum rated our banking system the world's best. That is significant.

When we look to other countries, the reason they are facing horrendous economic downturns is because decisions were made that were neither in their best interests at the time nor in the future. As well, no planning went on in some of the countries and others were continually overspending.

If we look at Canada, we are living in a nation where people are living well, although there are significant challenges for all communities. Having said that, it is incredible that for the fifth straight year the World Economic Forum has rated our banking system as the world's best. Also, all major credit rating agencies, such as Moody's, Fitch and Standard & Poor's, have affirmed Canada's AAA credit rating in this worldwide economic downturn.

Yet I sit in the House and hear over and over again about the NDP's job-killing carbon tax. I know that page 12 of the NDP's platform clearly highlighted that it would put a price on carbon. Therefore, this whole interchange in Parliament has been about the criticism of this government's handling of the economy. The opposition is blind to the factual information that has come not from members opposite but from global leaders and entities across the world who are praising Canada as the world's economic leader.

The NDP carbon tax would raise the price of everything that Canadians buy. I want to repeat that. The NDP—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that we have been going back and forth, but people who stand up and repeat misinformation and make things up are lowering the standard. If the member does not know the difference between what a—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. The hon. member for James Bay has been up on this point earlier today. I have ruled on this particular intervention, as have previous Chair occupants. The member will know that the ruling is that it is a debate as to the matter of facts. This is common in the course of debate in the chamber.

I would seek the member's co-operation that, unless he has a specific point of order as set out in the Standing Orders, he choose not to intervene when other members have the floor.

The hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am astounded at such a motion because on the 2011 NDP platform, on page 12, it specifically stated that the NDP would put a price on carbon. The New Democrats' costing document also showed plans to generate $21.5 billion in government revenue through the scheme. What would that do? The NDP carbon tax would raise the price of everything.

Earlier this week, I heard several members opposite talk about their concerns about rising gas prices. The NDP carbon tax would raise gas prices. Respected economist Jack Mintz calculated that the $21 billion proposed NDP carbon tax would raise gas prices by as much as 10¢ a litre. Therefore, this is a concern.

The Financial Post, on April 29, 2007, said, in reference to the NDP carbon tax, that it would increase the cost of transporting food and increase grocery prices. When we hear the members opposite talking about the need to take care of the workers and take care of Canadians, that is exactly what this government is doing.

For instance, when we talk about Canadians as a whole, we know that small business is a big asset to the economy in our country. We know that women, for instance, are entrepreneurs and are taking the lead in putting new creative businesses out there and feeding their families. They are very practical in what they do. Having said that, our government has proposed to extend the temporary hiring credit for small business for one year. That is huge because small businesses often do not have a chance to hire new people.

When I hear over and over again about the NDP carbon tax and the $21.5 billion intended to be raised if those members get into government, it just makes me shudder. We will not be hearing about 820,000 new jobs in the future if that happens, because the cost of everything shuts down everything, including small business.

As I said, small businesses are the engine of job creation in Canada and are indispensable in their role as job creators. Small businesses struggling to get ahead and families struggling to buy their groceries and pay their mortgages do not need to be taxed and taxed again. That is what the NDP carbon tax would do, just add more and more taxes to families who are already stretching their budget in every way.

This temporary hiring credit for small business is $1,000 per employer and for a small business that means a great deal. It means the difference between being able to push a business forward or having to step back and not be able to take care of one's family.

We talk about very practical things, as I have heard earlier today. I have heard some of the speeches here, and there are always complaints about there not being enough jobs, when 820,000 net new jobs is a lot of jobs. Those are people out there working, bringing home the bacon for their families. I have a real concern about the NDP carbon tax because it would not only kill jobs but it would also kill the ability for families to move ahead.

We have to be very mindful when things are proposed at the government level. Our government on this side of the House has been able to rank right up on top of the world for economic stability. That is something to be proud of it.

Members opposite and their families, and members on this side of the House, are living well even though there are some challenges. There are some things that will always be challenges, but this budget needs to be supported. This budget needs to be embraced to allow our country to move forward. I think that is what every member on all sides of the House wants.

The NDP carbon tax would kill jobs. The NDP carbon tax would push up the cost of gas. The NDP carbon tax would cause groceries to increase.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had a great deal of respect for Jim Prentice. There was a man who stood up in the House and did not misinform people. He was a man one could say would never lie. Jim Prentice in 2009 stood up as part of the throne speech and said that the government would put a price on carbon.

The present Minister of Foreign Affairs went to Montreal and said that the government would open a carbon trading institute in Montreal and “put a price on carbon”. Either they were making that up, they were lying or they thought the Canadian people were stupid, but that was the policy the government ran on: that it would put a price on carbon.

I see the bobbleheads who are now repeating this misinformation, the lie about the so-called carbon tax, when the government had told the Canadian people that it was putting a price on carbon

I would like to ask that hon. member, what happened to the commitment made by Jim Prentice, an honourable man in the House? Was that just cynicism on the government's part or was he making it up?

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the Prime Minister would never tax the public in any way, shape or form to that end.

The fact of the matter is that I have never before been called a “bobblehead” and I take exception to that kind of analogy. I have had nine years of university. I have raised six children. I do not consider myself a bobblehead.

I consider myself an intellectual person who works hard to raise the standard of everything I do, and I am saying great kudos to the government and our Prime Minister, who has protected this whole country from financial ruin when a lot of other countries have experienced economic downturns.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, following up on the point that my colleague raised, Mr. Prentice made his comments in response to the Speech from the Throne.

The Speech from the Throne actually did say that the government would put a price on carbon, and that price was $65 a tonne. If we take the total output, that would actually mean a $45 billion tax on carbon, which is more than double what the entire Conservative caucus is saying we are pitching.

How do we square that circle?

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, how I square that circle is that we are living in the year 2012 and the Prime Minister has never, ever said anything about putting a tax on carbon. It is the NDP carbon tax that would raise groceries. It is the NDP carbon tax that would increase gas prices. That is—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I both ran in 2008 against a carbon tax. The party that ran on the carbon tax was relegated to a reduced caucus in the opposition. They are now stuck in the third corner.

It is true that we talked about carbon trading with the United States. The United States would not trade. We cannot trade with ourselves, so that is the end of it.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for those comments because our government has been known for lowering taxes, giving tax breaks to every segment of our society from sports teams to families to small businesses.

The NDP carbon tax is the tax that was on page 12 of the NDP's platform, generating $21.5 billion in revenue. It would raise every single thing.

The member for Dauphin last week talked about the things families have to get for their Halloween festivities. It would even raise those simple family things that people enjoy every day. It would impact on this country in a major way.

We have to be very mindful of that when we are talking about the budget.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before recognizing the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, I must inform her that I will have to interrupt her at 6:30 p.m. at the conclusion of the time provided for government orders. She has three minutes for her speech.

The hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I get the impression that today is Groundhog Day, and I am not talking about the day in February where we check to see whether the groundhog has seen his shadow to determine when spring will arrive. Rather, I am talking about the 1993 movie, where the main character keeps reliving the same day over and over again. I have the vague impression that I have already lived this moment where I rise in the House to speak out against a bill that is over 400 pages long and contains many elements that were not part of the budget tabled by the Minister of Finance in March.

This is likely because this is not the first time this has happened. I promise to do my best not to repeat myself even if the speech I gave last June is still valid and relevant today.

Like Bill C-38, Bill C-45 is another massive omnibus bill that makes changes to many laws. Once again, the Conservatives are trying to ram their legislative measures through Parliament without allowing Canadians or their representatives, the MPs, to carefully examine them. The 400 pages of this bill once again contain many areas of concern.

I would have liked to focus on a few points, particularly health, but unfortunately, I have only one minute left.

What I can say is that this is truly an undemocratic practice designed to prevent the representatives of the people of Canada from examining the bill and doing their jobs properly. We are opposed to this way of doing business in Parliament. We want Canadians to know exactly what the current government is doing. We must speak out against all the bad things in this bill.

I would like Canadians to be aware of the fact that this is the same story all over again. This is the second time this has happened. It is the same 400-page bill to do nothing, apparently.

I hope that Canadians will learn their lesson about this government.

The House resumed from October 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert has seven minutes remaining for her speech.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take up where I left off yesterday.

Like Bill C-38, Bill C-45 is another massive omnibus bill that makes changes to many laws. Once again, the Conservatives are trying to ram their legislative measures through Parliament without allowing Canadians or their representatives, the MPs, to carefully examine them. The 400 pages of this bill contain many areas of concern. I would like to focus on a few specific points since, if I wanted to get into any detail, I would barely have time to address the table of contents of this mammoth bill in the 10 minutes that I have to speak.

The first point that I would like to speak about is health, particularly the decision to eliminate the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission, which falls under division 13 of part 4 of the bill. The commission was an organization that helped to regulate hazardous materials protected by business confidentiality by ensuring that employers and workers had the information they needed to safely handle hazardous materials in the workplace.

I would like to know what prompted this change at this time. Was the organization, in its existing form, not doing its job properly? I doubt it. Why is it necessary to give the mandate that is currently being carried out by the commission to a group of people who will be appointed by the minister? These are the questions that we should be examining. The government did not provide much in the way of justification for this change. It keeps hiding significant changes in giant, complex bills to prevent MPs from discussing and thoroughly examining the impact of these changes.

Unfortunately for the government, it has clearly not yet learned its lesson. The official opposition will not let the government impose new omnibus bills without resistance. Canadians deserve better. We will do our job and we will expose the bad decisions that this Conservative government is making.

The other point that I would like to address is the impact of the cuts to research and development. My riding, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, is lucky enough to have in it a number of specialized aerospace companies through the Saint-Hubert airport. The North American head office of Bombardier Transportation is also in my riding, in Saint-Bruno.

The changes to research and development proposed by the Conservative government will affect all these businesses and their workers. Various measures in the bill eliminate $500 million for entrepreneurs at a time when Canada already lags behind in investment in research and development. In my riding many people depend on the aerospace industry, and this situation is creating instability at a bad time.

Canada's aerospace industry is ranked fifth in the world. It employs over 150,000 Canadians directly and indirectly. It generates $22 billion in revenue annually and invests approximately $2 billion in research and development. That is significant.

These cuts are being made at a most unfortunate time because the sector is growing internationally and competition is increasingly fierce. In this context, I cannot understand and I deplore the decision made by the government to slash funding for an important tool that can spur innovation and productivity and maintain existing jobs. Technology and innovation have given Canada a comparative advantage in these leading-edge industries. Strategic investments in research and development as a whole are vital in order for Canada's industrial sector to compete with emerging countries and for Canada to retain its competitive edge internationally and its well-paid jobs.

I am not making this up. In its pre-budget consultation brief, the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada said that these measures to boost research and development are important for the future. The association said the following in the brief it submitted to the Standing Committee on Finance:

These measures will foster competitiveness and productivity, ensuring our industry is positioned to take advantage of the outstanding growth in demand for aircraft and thus create long-term, high-quality jobs for Canadians.

The NDP has called for a better balance between tax credits and direct support to businesses, which is what countries such as Israel, Sweden and Finland do, and they are ranked the most innovative countries according to OECD. But the budget only decreases the government's support for research and innovation.

And the Conservatives are proclaiming loud and clear that the 2012 budget creates jobs. We know that that is not true. In fact, the Parliamentary Budget Officer believes that the budget will lead to the loss of 43,000 Canadian jobs. This budget would increase the unemployment rate. I have to say that they are not walking the talk.

This bill is proof that the government says one thing but does another. It claims to want to support job creation, but there are no concrete measures to strengthen existing jobs, let alone create new ones. The Conservatives got elected in 2006 by promising Canadians that they would be transparent and accountable. But the government is hiding major reforms from Canadians by putting them into omnibus bills like this one and the earlier Bill C-38, and it does not want to give the Parliamentary Budget Officer the figures related to cuts to federal departments and agencies.

The NDP will always stand up proudly for transparency and accountability.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that, at the end of the day, the government is cutting back on thousands of civil servant jobs across the country. This will have a profoundly negative impact on the quality of services being provided, whether they be employment insurance programs or immigration programs.

The government is doing this during the same year it is actually increasing the size of the House of Commons, believing there is a need for more members of Parliament. This contradicts what a vast majority of Canadians want. Canadians do not want more politicians; they want those services maintained.

Would the member comment on the government's bad priorities when it comes to providing those important services that Canadians want?

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

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

Of course, that is what I just said in my speech. When the Conservative government was elected in 2006, it promised Canadians transparency and accountability. Unfortunately, considering these major omnibus reforms, Canadians can never know what this government will try to bury in its bills. That is why the opposition has asked several times for the government to be transparent and to split the bill up, and this is obviously in order to highlight this government's poor practices.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate my hon. colleague on her speech. I would also like to ask her if she has heard many comments—and I suspect she has—from her constituents regarding the current government's tendency to keep people in the dark.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher for his question. Of course my constituents are very concerned. They are always asking me what an omnibus bill is. Ordinary Canadians do not always understand our parliamentary jargon. They are very worried about the government's cuts to employment insurance, health care and several other crucial sectors, such as housing, when those are some of the basic things needed to ensure the well-being of ordinary Canadians. My constituents are very worried about the situation and are saying that they cannot wait for 2015.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I was listening to my hon. colleague's speech, I was looking across the way and realizing that the Conservative government is presiding over the largest deficit in Canadian history. The Conservatives are very poor fiscal managers, and then they present a document here that is actually going to decrease employment. We already have youth unemployment at officially 15%, and the member across the way is laughing. I would like to see him laugh at the young people in his riding who cannot find a job.

Is my hon. colleague hearing the same stories in her riding about young people? Why is it that the Conservatives laugh at young people who are looking for a job?

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. Young people are worried about the fact that this government is going to leave them with a huge deficit. In addition to the fiscal deficit, the environment will also be threatened, which is unfortunate for young people. We will all suffer from the cuts and from this government's policies regarding young people, women and seniors.

I would like to assure my colleague that young people today are more aware of government policies than they were in the past. They are the next generation and history will prove them right.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I take great pleasure in speaking in favour of the speedy passage of Bill C-45, jobs and growth act, 2012.

I am also pleased to congratulate the Minister of Finance for the outstanding job he is doing on behalf of all Canadians.

Canada is recognized internationally for the sound economic and fiscal policies of our Conservative government. Leadership on the economy is something that average Canadians who work hard, obey the law and pay their taxes understand.

While there are many benefits to passing Bill C-45 for the people of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, in the short time I have, I intend to focus on those aspects of this second budget implementation bill that are of interest to my constituents.

I intend to focus my comments on the Navigable Waters Protection Act. I've listened to a number of comments, starting with those of the Leader of the Opposition, which are ill-informed at best and misleading at worst, about this part of the budget bill and I believe it is important to set the record straight. Historically, the impetus behind the Navigable Waters Protection Act of 1882 was the result of representations made by Ottawa Valley lumbermen looking to protect the principal means they had at the time to bring their product to market.

In the 19th century, when the Navigable Waters Protection Act was legislated, rivers played an important role in the commerce of our great nation. The lumber trade of the upper Ottawa Valley relied upon rivers to bring the logs to market. Twelve years before the Navigable Waters Protection Act became law and three years after Confederation, Parliament passed An Act Respecting Certain Works on the Ottawa River. This act gave the federal government exclusive legislative authority in the construction of any works to ensure the Ottawa River is navigable. This was done to protect commerce and done years before the Navigable Waters Protection Act. That legislation is still on the books today.

What Canadians find misleading is when opposition members read things into the legislation that do not exist. Environmental protection for such things as pollution and fish habitat is covered by other legislation, not the Navigable Waters Protection Act. It was never intended for that purpose when it was written 140 years ago. The opposition may wish to stay trapped in the past, but our government believes it is time to leave the 19th century for the 21st century.

The public right of navigation is a common-law principle that dates back to Roman times. To my paddling friends, nothing in Bill C-45 detracts from the right to navigation in Canada. We respect the navigable qualities of any body of water that is indeed navigable, recognizing that any contemplated works need not compromise or undermine the recreational status of any body of water that is now or was previously the domain of paddlers.

This brings us to the Petawawa River. The decision by the federal government to include the Ottawa and Petawawa rivers in the list of 62 rivers retaining navigable waters constitutional jurisdiction protection was based in part on the real concern, on my part as well as that of my constituents, that the provincial environmental assessment process is being manipulated by the Ontario government to match a hidden agenda called the Green Energy Act. We needed to take an extra step to protect the Petawawa River.

In the province of Ontario the so-called Green Energy Act has been used to stifle democratic debate at the local level, running roughshod over the objections of local residents who are now being forced, through their power bills, to pay for unwanted and unnecessary power projects. Projects are being promoted under the guise of so-called green energy, when in fact the only green is in the pockets of the Liberal Party insiders who lobbied for 20 years to have industrial wind turbine contracts at outrageous financial subsidies. The collapse of the Liberal Party of Ontario and the resignation in disgrace of its leader led to the migration of these same individuals to Ottawa into positions of influence with their federal cousins.

The town of Petawawa unanimously passed the following motion at its September 4, 2012 council meeting:

That the Town of Petawawa advises the Premier of the Province of Ontario and his Ministers of Energy and Infrastructure, the Environment and Natural Resources that it does not and will not give any support or sanction to any project that is seeking or will be seeking ministry approval under the 2009 Green Energy act and in particular its “feed-in-tariff” provision.

To quote councillor Treena Lemay, who moved that motion: “The act promoted 'fast tracking' of environmental approvals for all electricity infrastructure projects, removed the long-established local planning process and left rural residents without effective noise complaint protocols and municipalities with no voice in their own community development”.

I thank councillor Treena Lemay for her leadership on this issue at municipal council.

In the case of the Petawawa River, plans to construct dam-like structures would destroy the fish habitat as well as recreational activities, including whitewater kayaking that now takes place on the river. I support the residents of Petawawa and their town council in objecting to the damming of the Petawawa River and will continue to object at the federal level until this proposal is withdrawn.

I share the concerns expressed by the Ontario Rivers Alliance about the fate of our other Ontario rivers, like the Vermilion. To quote the alliance:

We all want Green Energy, but let’s ensure it is truly Green, and not the “Green-washed” version that is being proposed for many of our Ontario rivers.

While I appreciate the concerns of Ontario residents and groups like the Ontario Rivers Alliance about the need for a federal presence in certain instances to provide a system of checks and balances to ill-conceived legislation like the Ontario Green Energy Act, these checks and balances remain in place with the passage of Bill C-45.

When the Navigable Waters Protection Act came before Parliament previously in 2009, I was honoured to welcome Jack MacLaren, a seventh generation Renfrew County orchard farmer, to appear before the Standing Committee on Finance. Mr. MacLaren contacted me after he ran into trouble with the Navigable Waters Protection Act. In his case what should have been a simple matter became a complicated issue because of a piece of legislation dating back to the 1980s.

I had also been contacted by municipalities that complained to me about the time and expense to clean out a municipal drainage ditch because of the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

In short, it is clear that changes are absolutely necessary to this act.

The other issue I intend to respond to is the criticism by the opposition that Bill C-45 is too detailed and complicated for them to understand. The opposition call Bill C-45 omnibus legislation, hoping that Canadians will buy into its delay tactics because it would rather complain than do its job.

Bill C-45 is the second budget bill. Here, I draw members' attention to a debate in the House that took place on June 13 of this year on the first budget bill between the opposition member for Markham—Unionville and the hard-working Conservative member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore. In that exchange the opposition member complained about a program he claimed was cancelled by our budget. Our government member responded with shock at what he had heard. He proceeded to set the record straight, reading directly from the budget that the program in question, the Canadian innovation and commercialization program, had not only been funded for another three years but had also been built up and made permanent. This led the member for Etobicoke--Lakeshore to ask the opposition member if he had even read the budget. The opposition member obviously had not read the budget, which brings me to my last point.

The opposition has had a copy of our budget for months, with plenty of time to analyze the budget document. If they were doing their job, they would be ready to debate and scrutinize all aspects of the budget now. Opposition for the sake of opposition is not acceptable to Canadians. The Library of Parliament can help out with a legislative guide for all things not understood, like the history of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. This is why it is so important at this time to modernize a 140-year-old piece of legislation and proceed with the passage of Bill C-45.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to hear Conservative members try to defend two budget bills that are in excess of a thousand pages, amending in excess of a hundred pieces of legislation, and try to say this is the norm. The member then picked up on the navigable waters section of the bill and asked why we should not make the proposed changes. She highlighted an issue, that there are many different parts of this particular bill and the bill that preceded it in the summertime.

These bills should have been separated. There should have been dozens of other pieces of legislation that would have allowed all members of the House to engage on the wide variety of issues at stake.

Why did the member's government not support allowing a legitimate process of debate inside this chamber on the huge number of bills the Conservatives are trying to sneak through in this budget debate?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member opposite does not have a question on the substance of the bill.

Sky-high electricity rates have led to plant closures in Ontario, for example. This means that people are on employment insurance, a federal responsibility. This is the jobs and growth act, 2012, so it is directly related to electricity, which in turn is related to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The reckless spending by the province also brings into focus the aspect of the equalization payments that we will be forced to administer over time.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was surprised to hear the member tell us to read the budget, when we have read it from cover to cover. What she mentioned about navigable waters protection was not even in the March 2012 budget. So it is a bit surprising that she is talking about a subject that was not even in the budget but that appears in this 450-page bill.

How can she explain that a subject that was not in the March budget and that had never been mentioned is now in this omnibus bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Navigable Waters Protection Act is being amended to allow for jobs and growth. This budget is specifically about ensuring that jobs increase and that those people who have jobs can sustain them.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to question the colleague of mine, who is from the same class of 2000. I have had the pleasure of serving with her and know that she is a very strong fiscal Conservative. I know that she cares so much about her constituents, as I always see her working hard and sending notes and getting ready for events.

One of the strongest recommendations made by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business year after year is that our government move back toward balanced budgets and reduce the deficit. I am wondering if my colleague would speak about the importance of the economic action plan to move toward balanced budgets and decrease and get rid of the deficit.

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

Mr. Speaker, our goal is balanced budgets. It is something that we promised in the last election. Unfortunately, during the global economic downturn that began in 2008, we were required by the begging and bewildering calls of the opposition to increase spending to keep the economy afloat. As a consequence, the deficit was a little higher for that year and we are working diligently by controlling spending to get the budget balanced.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to speak to Bill C-45.

As a number of members who spoke before me have mentioned, it is absolutely ridiculous for the government to include all kinds of measures that have nothing to do with the budget. There are all kinds of clauses in the bill that have nothing to do with the budget. Content aside, anyone can see that the Conservatives are going about things the wrong way and that they do not take this seriously.

It is unrealistic for a single committee to study a bill in so little time, and this shows the Conservatives' bad faith. The government itself is unable to assess the true impact of its budget on job losses or even job creation, or the effects it will have on Canadians. Yet the Conservatives did nothing to allow the Standing Committee on Finance to properly study the bill.

The Standing Committee on Finance is working on other matters, such as pre-budget consultations. It has been allocated little time to study this more than 400-page bill, which contains measures that have nothing to do with finance or the budget.

Canadians are not fools and know that the government has tried on several occasions to quietly pass measures that will be disastrous for Canada. I do not have much time, but I will attempt nevertheless to highlight some of the main elements of this budget.

In my opinion, one of the few positive measures in the budget is the elimination of the penny. That is good news for Canada. As a result of inflation, today this coin has practically no value and costs more to make than what it is worth. The Government of Canada will save $11 million a year with this measure, and businesses and consumers will save a lot of time when making cash transactions. This measure is not in the bill, but I wanted to mention it because I had not had the opportunity to do so previously.

Returning to a balanced budget is also a good point and necessary for Canada's economic well-being. There again, it all depends on what you cut and how you do it. Although I agree with the government that we should cut the fat, we must make a distinction between what is and what is not useful.

The government constantly tells us that services will not be affected, but no one has provided any studies or reports confirming that items cut are actually optional. The government has decided to cut 10% from one service and 5% from another without having any idea of the impact.

The Liberal Party wants facts, expert reports and studies. However, as we have seen for a number of years now, the majority Conservative government is improvising and still refusing to accept reality, preferring to blindly trust its ideology. The Prime Minister himself recently confirmed that any organization that is in conflict with the Conservative ideology will no longer receive public funding.

Bill C-45 continues the reckless Conservative abuse of power. The omnibus budget bill is another example of the Conservatives steamrolling of democracy, as we have said again and again, forcing unpopular, non-budgetary measures through Parliament and trying to do it with as much speed and little debate and scrutiny as possible.

Bill C-45 is a 414 page document with 516 clauses, amending over 60 different pieces of legislation. The measures that do not belong in this finance bill, as my other colleagues have spoken about, include the rewriting of laws protecting Canada's waterways, the redefinition of aboriginal fisheries without consulting first nations and the elimination of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission.

By rushing these massive omnibus bills through Parliament, the Conservatives deny Parliament and Canadians the opportunity to carefully consider the proposed laws to identify flaws and propose solutions.

Bill C-45 actually includes a number of measures to fix mistakes in the last bill, Bill C-38, its predecessor, including omissions in the amended Fisheries Act regarding the passage of fish, and the poor drafting of transitional provisions in the new environmental assessment law.

There is ambiguity around the ministerial approval process for certain investments by public investment pools as well.

Today, a majority of Canadians are worried about growing income inequality, between both individuals and regions. The Liberal Party has put forward motions and discussed it in Parliament. Again, we do not see anything in the budget that addresses this income inequality that Canadians are worried about.

An area where the budget bill could actually create jobs, and in turn does not, is an area where it actually slashes investment tax credits that encourage economic growth and job creation, like the scientific research and experimental development tax credit, the Atlantic investment tax credit and the corporate mineral exploration and development tax credit.

The Conservatives are using Bill C-45 to avoid lawsuits, like exempting the Detroit-Windsor bridge from environmental laws and regulations such as the Fisheries Act, the Species at Risk Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. If the Conservatives want to avoid lawsuits, they should just follow the laws that are in place instead of weakening the ones that are meant to protect our environment.

One example I would like to cite where there has been a little back and forth is on the cuts to research and development. The Liberals oppose the government's plan to cut the SR&ED program. The SR&ED program is a federal tax incentive program that encourages Canadian businesses of all sizes and in all sectors to conduct research and development in Canada. It is the largest single source of federal government support for industrial R and D. The R and D program gives claimants tax credits for their expenditures on eligible R and D work done in Canada. The government has opted to decrease these credits, promising to reinvest the savings into direct grants. The grants mean that the government would pick which companies would benefit from government support, rather than providing an across the board tax credit available to any business undertaking R and D. A company may not know anyone in the government and have a great idea.

Instead of making the R and D program much better, the government decided to make four changes: reducing the general SR&ED tax credit from 20% to 15%; reducing the prescribed proxy amount, which taxpayers use to claim the R and D amount from overhead expenditures, from 65% to 55% of salaries and wages of employees who are engaged in R and D activities; removing the profit element from arm's length third-party contracts for the purpose of the calculation of R and D credits, by allowing only 80% of the value to be counted toward eligible expenditures; and removing capital from the base of eligible expenditures for the purpose of the calculation of R and D.

I could go on. I have about three pages of notes on this subject.

My point on R and D is that, as a former member of the finance committee—I chaired it and I was vice-chair—I heard numerous groups, whether accounting groups, business groups or tax groups. They all said to make the program easier. The government has done what it has done for other programs, slightly tweaked it, made it more complicated, reduced percentages and increased certain percentages. It decided to just cut things and has taken a whole lot of money out of there, and politicized it by saying it would now give out grants.

I understand my time is coming to an end. I will be taking questions. I will not be supporting the bill in the form it is in.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats have consistently been against omnibus budget bills, dating back to the 90s when the then Liberal finance minister, Paul Martin, routinely introduced these measures. It is interesting to see the Liberal Party now coming around toward being against the very beast it created in the first place.

Leaving that aside for a minute, the Conservatives have posted the largest deficit in Canadian history, but they have their paws all over workers' and employers' moneys through the EI fund. This, as well, is a practice started by the Liberals when they were in government.

I wonder if my hon. colleague would agree that, if the Conservatives had not followed the Liberal practice of taking the money out of the EI fund to help pay for its corporate tax cut schemes, we might not be in this kind of situation. Would you agree with that?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I would remind members to address their comments to the Chair and not to individual members of Parliament.

The hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see that the NDP is trying to read budgets today, as opposed to the year 2000 when it just voted against them. However, in talking about omnibus bills, I will try to address some of the questions the member had.

The omnibus bills we used to table were not even 100 pages long. They addressed issues that were in the budget. However, in this case, in my speech I gave at least four or five examples of items that are in the omnibus bill but not in the budget. Therefore, I do not see how the situations are comparable.

In terms of unemployment, I do not see why we are faulted. We had great economic growth and made great decisions in terms of moving the economy ahead. The unemployment insurance premiums were being held in a separate fund but they were used for the debt. It is not as if the money was spent on items for political purposes, as the Conservative Party does.

The money was still there and still accounted for. We just did a good job with the economy and did not have to pay out a lot of the EI premiums that were collected, because people were actually working instead of being on unemployment insurance. I do not see what the problem is.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech and I certainly enjoyed serving on the finance committee with him in the past.

I would like to ask the member if he supports the part of the bill that deals with changes to the Indian Act in part 4, division 8.

He and I were both in Kamloops, where we heard from Manny Jules on changes to the Indian Act with respect to ownership by first nation people on reserves and private property. I think he supported the concept of the idea at the time. I wonder if he is supportive of the changes in this specific piece of legislation dealing with this issue.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question from the member opposite, even though he is a Conservative. We have actually worked quite well together.

I was very favourable to the ideas of Manny Jules in Kamloops. We saw the place and thought it was a great initiative. We are still debating it within our party, which is something the Liberal Party does: we debate issues, and that is what we are asking for on the omnibus bill.

Certain measures in the omnibus bill need to be debated separately by people who have the expertise. We need to have witnesses come before the proper committee, and not just for five minutes, to look at the pro and cons. What might be of benefit to one community or stakeholder may not be of benefit to another.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, back in 1994, the Prime Minister addressed the Liberal omnibus bill, which was a 21-page document, and I want to quote what he said back then when he was in the opposition:

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

He asked the government members particularly to worry about the implications of the omnibus bill for “democracy and functionality of Parliament”.

Would the member not agree that the Prime Minister's words back then echo those of today, loud and clear?

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course, what was said by the Prime Minister then applies today. It is complete hypocrisy. We had a motion on this and the Prime Minister actually voted against his own words.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure to be able to stand in the House today and to speak on behalf of my constituents in support of this budget bill. We are debating the implementation phase of our budget, our jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act. The good news is that this government is steadfast in our commitment to help create jobs for Canadians.

The other good news is that our plan is working. The plan is showing a great deal of success. September, last month, again showed strong job growth. We have heard it in the House before, that more than 820,000 new jobs have been created. Out of those 820,000 new jobs, 90% are full-time. All the time, we hear from the opposition that they are part-time jobs, but 90% of these jobs are full-time. Eighty per cent of the jobs are within the private sector. This is not a government that is saying we are going to create jobs by hiring more people for the public service, hiring more people so they can work for the government. This is the private sector people saying they believe that, as bad as this global downturn is, they have confidence that they can create jobs and build an economy here in Canada.

Jobs are what Canadians want. Canadians elected our government with a strong mandate to do what we can to help families grow and prosper. Canadian families know that when Mom or Dad or even some of the young people in that family have a job, everything is better at home.

Canadians also know that this global economy remains fragile. Especially when we look at the news and see what is going on in Europe with just one country after another in turmoil and also in our closest trading partner, the United States, Canadians realize that this is a global economy that is very fragile. We know our largest trading partners are having a difficult time, so that means Canada is not immune to the challenges coming from outside our borders.

That is why Canadians elected the Conservative Party of Canada and not the New Democratic Party or the Liberal Party. They know we had a plan that would work.

Our Conservative government is working hard to support local economies with positive pro-growth measures in this economic action plan 2012. It is not just talk. On this side of the House, we are offering the job-creating hiring credit for small businesses, among other measures. In my riding of Crowfoot, there are many small communities that are taking advantage of this, small communities where there are small and medium-sized businesses that can take a look at our plan. Even when I put out my householder with the tax guide for 2011, we talked about the job-hiring credit. Many people in my riding are picking up on this, and people are taking advantage of it in rural Canada as well.

Budget 2012 is full of measures not just for the big corporations and big business. It is full of measures for families and for small and medium-sized business. Our government is committed to increasing Canada's exports to the Asia Pacific. It is not all about only finding tax measures and hiring credits and measures for here at home; we are also recognizing that we need to look abroad. This is critical to industries in Canada to help create jobs and to level the playing field to allow Canadian companies to be competitive.

Canadians can clearly see that our government is promoting trade. However, every time we come forward with a new trade agreement or negotiations toward a new trade agreement, we know even before we table the thing that it will always be opposed by the official opposition. The New Democrats vote against it. That is another reason why Canadians gave this government a strong majority here in the House of Commons; they realize we have a proactive agenda for building trade and building our economy around the world.

In my riding, we need a government to help us export our products around the world. Our Minister of International Trade, our Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and our Prime Minister have done a remarkable job in this area. They are garnering markets for our products all around the world, not only agricultural products, not only in places like Jordan and others that are taking our pulse crops or Colombia and other places. Around the world, for many different sectors in our economy, our government is getting the job done.

Some 60% of the people in Canada's workforce do not have a pension. We have spoken of this before in the House of Commons. In my constituency, small businesses are having a hard time attracting people to work because some of the benefits of being able to buy into a pension plan are not available. Therefore, when our government comes with a pension plan, a smaller pension plan, small business appreciates it. It is very simple. When people go from one job to another, they can take their pension with them. It is a positive that a lot of people are looking forward to and are using.

We are doing other things. Pooled registered pension plans are working. There are a lot of other things in this budget that are good.

The House has been debating this bill for close to three months. We have talked about this budget for over three months. The finance committee created a special subcommittee, as per the request of the opposition. Together, these committees have held over 70 hours of meetings and have heard from over 100 witnesses who came in front of the committee to testify.

I really believe the finance committee chair is probably one of the hardest-working people in the House. That committee has had over 70 hours of meetings. I know our public safety committee is on its 55th meeting and we are busy. The finance committee has had 82 meetings. The finance chair is up and working before Uncle Charlie in Wainright is milking the cows, so the committee is getting the job done.

Bill C-38 has had more debate in the House than any other legislation over the last 20 years. The opposition tries to delay. It tries to implement and deny hard-working Canadians and taxpayers the benefits of the budget, which this implementation act would help implement. The opposition has always done that.

There is a lot more I could speak about in the implementation bill. I want to quickly move to some examples of things that are very positive in the bill.

The first is streamlining the process for the approval of energy projects. This is one of the things, over a period of time, to which our government has committed to ensure that our economy can grow, to ensure that if there is one project there is one review and to ensure that there will not be an endless degree of delay. All those things hinder our economy. We want to, in many different ways, move the economy forward. We want to, as I have already said, help Canadians find jobs. We want to remove redundant and extra layers of bureaucracy.

A press release was issued a number of months ago. In one case, the bureaucracy was diminished by the CFIA having a building and Agriculture Canada having a building a block away. In the CFIA building there was a whole section of IT, mail systems and computer systems and, again, a duplication of those services in the building just a block away.

We are able to combine streamline some of these things to reduce the number of bureaucrats and the levels of bureaucracy in Ottawa and around Canada, for example, taking the Department of Fisheries and Oceans out of the creeks and watersheds of the Prairies and focusing its work on fish habitats on our coastlines.

It is important to ensure that the fish stocks grow, but they will not grow in east central Alberta because there is a lack of lakes. However, we still have a lot of people who come and give their opinion on some of those issues of growth.

This summer I received an email from my daughter. After some time in education she received her nursing degree and was able to get a job. This is the email she sent me after receiving her first paycheque, “Okay, Dad, something needs to change. I made $4,158 this month and only take home $2,842. Do something, this is so stupid”.

I told her the opposition, according to the Broadbent Institution, believed that she was not spending enough on her taxes, that it wanted to see higher taxes. We are committed to seeing this economy grow and we are committed to lowering taxes.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my friend's comments very closely. I would like to go back to the very beginning of his speech when he talked about jobs. I know the member to be very clever. I know him to be hard working. I know he is not fooled easily, but I wonder if he has been tricked by his own talking points.

It is my understanding that fully one-third of the full-time jobs he has talked about are temporary foreign worker jobs. Would the member have the exact number of temporary foreign worker jobs that are part of those figures about which he has talked?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, no, I do not.

What I do have are groups and businesses from across Alberta and Canada coming to my office as well as the offices of members of Parliament from Alberta. The number one issue is labour and being able to secure good, skilled labour to work, whether it is in the oil patch, small business, agriculture or wherever it may be.

We will slow down as an economy if we do not have the people who can be put into those positions and jobs. In order for the economy to grow, we will take every opportunity to hire local, skilled, trained Canadians for the job. If those are not there, especially in Alberta where there is such growth, then we need to secure labour.

Many of the jobs are foreign labour, but I am talking about Canadian jobs. We are talking about Canadians who are looking for jobs and who are willing to work. We want to ensure that the economy avails them the opportunity to find that job.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was going to get up on a point of order on this, but the member was in his own little fantasy world and I did not want to interrupt him.

I have a bill called Bill C-45. The first reading was October 18. The member across said that we had been discussing it for three months. Then he went on to say that the bill has been around for 20 years.

Is this his fantasy world? Are we talking about the same calendar year and the same bill?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being able to set the record straight and inform the member that, yes, he is correct, the budget implementation bill was just announced.

However, the budget came down in March. This is the implementation bill. Let me just explain for the member that this implementation bill is the technicalities of how the bill is implemented. For example, the other day the member spoke day about the Judges Act and judges' payment. Four or five pages in the budget implementation bill lay out the pay for our judges. It is a very technical implementation bill.

The budget is there. It has been discussed for three months. This bill is to help us implement it.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for outlining much of the good work that our finance chair does at the committee level. It is incredible.

The member also mentioned, a number of times, the issues of job creation. I cannot say how many times I have heard in my riding over the last number of months how job creators, business people are appreciating our low-tax environment, which allows them to invest in job creation in Canada.

Near the end of his speech, my colleague commented just briefly on the Ed Broadbent Institute. Could he further elaborate? I have just come across something from the institute that is headed by former NDP leader, Ed Broadbent. I want to read a very short section of it. It says:

Taxes are the hinge that links citizens to one another and to the common good....We should also consider eliminating...the ‘boutique’ tax credits of recent budgets...consider implementing taxes on very large inheritances of wealth which pass morally-unjustifiable class privilege...Significant revenues could be raised by the introduction of a financial transactions tax...Green taxes—such as a carbon tax and higher taxes on natural resources—need to be considered as a means of financing...

Could my colleague comment on whether he agrees with that?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, all around the world governments are leaving socialist ideas and programs because they realize they just simply are not working. I have listened to the NDP propaganda and Mr. Broadbent. They have said that we do not pay enough taxes in our country, period. The NDP's agenda is to have a higher tax and have government become almost like a god, so we will go to government and it will give us all everything we need.

We want to put $3,100 back into the pockets of Canadians. We do not want a big $21 billion carbon tax that will kill the economy. This is a good budget implementation act and we need to support it.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I, along with my NDP colleagues, oppose this monster budget bill. I oppose it on both content and process. First I will talk about the process.

The Conservatives talk about the unprecedented level of debate and hours of debate on this bill and the previous budget bill. Even the member for Crowfoot, who spoke before me, talked about unprecedented debate in the House. Let us review that to see if they are right.

Bill C-20, which was what the budget bill was called in 1991, was six pages long and between first and third reading in the House of Commons, there were 192 days of debate. In 1995, it was Bill C-76 and it was 48 pages long. There were 78 days of debate in the chamber. Bill C-32 in 2000 was 29 pages long, it went down a bit in size, and there were 60 days of debate. Bill C-33 in 2004 was 76 pages long and it received 79 days of debate in this chamber.

What happened this year? This spring the omnibus budget bill touched or outright repealed over 70 laws. A third of that budget bill was about gutting environmental legislation. Most pieces of the budget had not been debated in the House before and most of those pieces were not campaigned on.

I do not remember the Conservatives campaigning in the 2011 election saying that they were going to increase OAS eligibility from the age of 65 to 67. I do not remember them campaigning on the fact that they were going to diminish health care transfers. In fact, during that election, I was the health critic for the NDP and I remember the opposite. The Conservatives campaigned on maintaining and increasing health care transfers.

We also cannot find any of these pieces in Conservative Party policy. If we turn to its policy, we will not find the Conservatives saying that they believe they should raise the age that people can collect their OAS.

The member for Crowfoot said that we had this budget. that this stuff had existed for so long and we should have read it. I would love for any member on that side of the House to tell me anything, even one word, about what the changes were to the Assisted Human Reproduction Act in the last omnibus budget bill, never mind what that had to do with the budget. I think most Conservatives would be hard pressed to even repeat the phrase “assisted human reproduction”.

We had Bill C-38 in the spring that was 425 pages long and there were 54 days of debate. Here we are again this fall with the second omnibus budget, the son of omnibus. I do not know how long this debate will go, but the government has already moved time allocation. I cannot imagine it will be very long. I cannot imagine it will be the heady days of 1991 when there were 192 days of debate, I highly doubt that, and we have a bill that is over 440 pages long.

The length of debate is important. Maybe the Conservatives do not think it is important because they do not like to listen when the NDP brings forward reasonable ideas. They just want to sit with their eyes closed and their hands over their ears. However, the length of debate is important for democracy because it allows entry points for civil society to engage with the legislative process. Think about it. How does civil society actually engage with this process? People cannot come here to vote or give speeches in the House, but there are entry points for them. They write letters to their MPs. They write letters to the editor. They testify at committee. They come up with good ideas and send them to us via social media. They phone us and have meetings with us in our communities. They have brown bag luncheon seminars in their workplaces to talk about how this will impact them. Sometimes they even take to the streets. The length of debate allows that process, that moment for civil society to engage with the legislative process.

The NDP brought forward amendments to the bill at committee based on what the community and civil society had told us. The opposition brought forward over 800 amendments in the House based on what civil society said, but we had 54 days of debate where that entry point for civil society was eliminated because not one amendment was made. What is the result because the government did not listen? In this omnibus monster budget, there are amendments to amendments that were made in the last budget bill.

Can members imagine amendments to amendments in the same year, as if we needed more evidence that the Conservatives are bad managers?

The process is undemocratic. Bill C-45 is a massive omnibus budget bill that makes amendments to a wide range of acts. Once again, the Conservatives are trying to ram the legislation through Parliament without allowing Canadians and their MPs to thoroughly examine it. They need to remember that we are their members of Parliament. It is our job to look at the bill properly, make amendments and suggest ideas. New Democrats are proud to stand in the House and actually do their job.

I fear that I am quickly running out of time, and I wanted to share some words from Canadians. I know the Conservatives will not listen to the NDP, because they do not like reasonable, good, sound ideas, but maybe they will listen to Canadians.

I have some letters I received from constituents.

The first is from Rebekah Hutten, who wrote:

My name is Rebekah Hutten, and I am a university student deeply concerned about [the budget].

I am writing to let you know how disturbed I am by this furtive endeavour to use an omnibus budget bill to completely wipe out years of progress Canada has made on environmental protection.... For the sake of the environment, I implore you to demand the non-budget matters—all environmental changes—be removed from C-38 [the last budget bill] and put forward as stand-alone legislation.

We took that advice and tried to do that, but the Conservatives refused to listen. We are trying to do that with this budget bill as well. We will see if they come around to their senses.

I received another letter from Bill Davidson, who wrote:

I am one of your constituents in Halifax, and I wanted to write to you to express my displeasure, or rather horror, about bill C-38, the conservatives' omnibus “budget” bill. This is not a budget, it is one of the most anti-democratic pieces of legislation ever tabled in a Canadian parliament, complete with wholesale destruction of anything resembling environmental policy. It is anti-environment, anti-science, anti-common sense, and insulting to Canadians from coast to coast to coast.... Please [member of Parliament for Halifax], don't let these guys get away with this without putting up a fight.

Leagh and Diane Colins wrote:

Our fathers and grandfathers fought for Democracy—many giving the ultimate sacrifice of their lives against tyranny and government control. Censorship against free speech and the right to protest against that which we deem to be detrimental to our society is what they fought against. This current government disrespects their memory.

Our children and grandchildren will not have much of a world to grow up in when we allow the short-sighted goals of profit to overwhelm Canada's proud legacy of its environment and wildlife.

We most emphatically urge you to speak out against this bill and these measures to still the voice of opposition to environmental destruction.

In closing, I would like to seek unanimous consent to move the following motion: That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, clauses 316 to 350 and Schedule 2 related to changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and clauses 425 to 432 related to the changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 be removed from Bill C-45, a second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures and do compose Bill C-47; that Bill C-47 be entitled “an act to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012”; that Bill C-47 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for referral to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development; that Bill C-45 retain the status on the order paper it had prior to the adoption of this order; that Bill C-45 be reprinted as amended; and that the law clerk and parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.

We are proposing this motion to ensure that the bill is split for proper study at the correct committee, and specifically to ensure that the Navigable Waters Protection Act is reviewed at the environment committee, where it belongs, and which government websites would have supported until about seven days ago.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Does the hon. member for Halifax have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns of the Liberal Party, virtually since the Prime Minister went overseas and made the announcement that he was looking at making changes to OAS, our old age supplement, and to our pension program was the fact that these are a foundation or cornerstone of social programing, and we have to be there in a very real and tangible way for our seniors.

We have heard very clearly from independent officers that there is no crisis. I know that the Liberals and the New Democrats have recognized that we need to see that commitment to allow individuals to continue to retire at age 65 reinstated. This is something the Liberal Party has been clear about. I believe that the New Democrats have also taken that position.

I wonder if the member might want to provide comment on the whole issue of the old age supplement.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the OAS.

I will share a story. I was in my riding, waiting at a bus stop, and I was chatting with a constituent who was confused about the OAS and whether it would impact him. He told me what his birthdate was. Coincidentally, it was the same year as the Prime Minister's, so the changes will not affect him. He was relieved to hear that, because he needs that money. He paused and then said that it is not fair to the next generation. He wanted to know how he could help fight for the next generation. He gets it. He gets that this is about making sure that seniors can make ends meet.

My colleague is right to say that we have so many independent verifiers who say that we do not actually have a crisis when it comes to ensuring that seniors can get their OAS, GIS and CPP. We do not have a crisis right now. I absolutely agree with the member.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for being an excellent advocate for her constituents from Halifax by actually reading into the record what they have been writing.

I read the budget that was tabled in March. Recently I did an online search of the budget for the word “navigable”. It resulted in zero results, because the word “navigable” does not exist in the budget. However, we are being told by members of the government over and over again that in this budget implementation act, the word “navigable” apparently exists. Maybe they have put a different version of the budget on the Internet for the public to see. I am not sure, but I searched online and could not find it.

Conservatives seem to be changing a lot in the Navigable Waters Protection Act. If my intelligent colleague can help me understand, I would very much appreciate that.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Scarborough—Rouge River for really doing her homework and for doing good research on this piece. That part about navigable waters had escaped me, so I am glad she did that.

This is exactly what the Conservatives are doing. They claim that all of these changes are in their budget, but then they present bills that are completely different.

I am the environment critic for the NDP. I meet with environmentalists, but I meet with industry too. Industry officials were pleased as punch with the changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act in the last budget bill. I disagree with them, but they were pretty happy. Some of them were pleased with the changes to the Fisheries Act. Again, I disagree with them, but they were pretty happy.

I talked to officials about the navigable waters act, and they said, “Whoa, we didn't ask for this”. The government seems to think that it is appeasing industry, but industry never asked for this. The Conservatives are just imagining what could be another possible win for industry, and they are making stuff up. If they actually consulted with industry, they would realize that changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act was not one of their asks. Conservatives should really start doing their homework.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand in the House today to speak to Bill C-45, the second implementation bill relating to the jobs and growth act 2012.

I would like to first preface my remarks by reminding my colleagues on the opposition benches that Bill C-45 provides the mechanisms to implement the provisions outlined in budget 2012. That legislation was tabled a full seven months ago, on March 29, 2012.

Budget 2012 has received more debate than any other budget bill in this House. I also remind my colleagues that Bill C-45 will be sent to 45 different standing committees for further scrutiny and debate, so I think there are adequate opportunities for discussion and debate.

I would like to comment on a few of the enabling legislative items in Bill C-45 that are especially appreciated by the residents in my riding of Newmarket—Aurora.

Both Newmarket and Aurora are situated at the top of the GTA, in York region. It is one of the fastest growing areas in Ontario, and residents there have clearly articulated to me that they want their government to remain focused on jobs and economic growth.

That is why, for example, they are very pleased with the implementation measures in Bill C-45 that enable pooled registered pension plans to become a reality.

Bill C-45 amends the Income Tax Act to accommodate pooled registered pension plans, or PRPPs. It sets out the tax treatment for contributions to and distributions from PRPPs. It also deals with a number of related issues, such as the registration of pooled pension plans and transfers on the death of a PRPP member.

I cannot say enough about how important PRPPs are to entrepreneurs and working Canadians in my riding of Newmarket—Aurora.

In York region, home to over one million people, 83% of all businesses have fewer than 20 employees. This will be a very valuable tool for employers. It will help them, first, to retain good staff, and second, to provide pension options to those who currently may not--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. The hon. member for Newton—North Delta.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am fairly new to this House. I have been here just over a year. I was taken aback when my colleague mentioned 45 standing committees here in the House of Commons. As far as I know, there are only about 25 or 26.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It is a matter of debate on factual matters.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I said 11 standing committees, not 45. I referenced Bill C-45.

Let me repeat. Eighty-three per cent of all businesses in York Region, home to over one million people, have less than 20 employees. PRPPs will be a very valuable tool for employers to help them, first of all, to retain good staff and, second, to provide pension options to those who currently may not participate in a pension plan. Third, it will allow many entrepreneurs to better save for their retirements, such as those who operate a family business and who regularly put in 70-plus hours or more a week to support their families and to provide opportunities for others to do the same.

It simply is not fair that entrepreneurs, those who take on the risk, many by mortgaging their own assets and taking out personal loans to create jobs and opportunity across our country, do not have access to a company pension plan nor have the ability to offer one to their employees. Bill C-45 would correct this inequity.

I am also pleased about the lower corporate tax rate. We know that lowering corporate tax rates creates jobs. How do we know this? The proof is in the pudding. Let us just look for a moment at Canada's economic record.

Since 2006 our corporate tax rate has been steadily declining from 22% to 15%. As everyone is no doubt well aware, in 2008-09 Canada and the world were faced with the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. That being said, unlike other countries Canada has emerged from that downturn in a relative position of strength. For example, nearly 820,000 new jobs have been created since July 2009, the strongest job creation record in the G7. Forbes magazine ranks Canada as the best place for businesses to grow and create jobs, and all the major credit rating agencies, Moody's, Fitch and Standard & Poor's, have affirmed Canada's AAA credit rating. Canada's debt to GDP ratio is by far the best in all the G7.

These results did not happen by chance. They are the result of a government focused on jobs and economic growth, one that does not get sidetracked and that clearly articulates its goals and sets out a methodical plan to achieve them.

I remind Canadians that in 2006 when this government came to office, it set out a long-range plan to foster strong and sustainable economic growth. It set out to show the world that we were a modern, dynamic and tolerant country. There were five goals: first, to establish the lowest tax rate on new business investment in the G7; second, to chart a course to eliminate Canada's debt; third, to reduce unnecessary regulation and red tape in Canada's marketplace; fourth, to create the best educated, most skilled and most flexible workforce in the world; and fifth, to build the modern infrastructure we need. That was six years ago and today we remain focused on achieving these goals.

We are keeping Canada's corporate tax rates low, lowering taxes on families, supporting a market economy with a non-interventionist government, and implementing a pro-trade agenda. These policies are contributing to Canada's relative economic success.

The opposite side of the House, however, advocates for higher taxes, such as the NDP's $21 billion carbon tax proposal. In this high-tax scenario I argue that today's global economy businesses would simply choose other places to invest. Corporations would have a thinner bottom line and would not be able to hire or keep as many employees. This would lead to increased unemployment and lower government revenues. Government would have to take on more debt to finance its activities. What happens when a government has to pay more to service its debt? Investor confidence fails and with it, business investment and economic growth. Thankfully this is not the case and I want to assure residents in my riding of Newmarket—Aurora that this government will never subscribe to high-tax schemes.

I would like to highlight another implementation measure in Bill C-45 that is important to Newmarket—Aurora. The amendments to part IV of the Employment Insurance Act allow the extension of the hiring credit for small business to 2012.

Small businesses are the engine of job creation in Canada, as they are in Newmarket—Aurora. In recognition of the challenges faced by small businesses across the country, budget 2011 announced a temporary hiring credit for small business of up to $1,000 per employer. This credit provided needed relief to small businesses by helping defray the costs of hiring new workers and allowing them to take advantage of emerging economic opportunities. Extending the temporary hiring credit for small business for one year would result in a credit of up to $1,000 against an employers' increase in 2012 EI premiums, over those paid in 2011. This temporary credit would be available to approximately 53,000 employers whose total EI premiums were at or below $10,000 in 2011, reducing small business 2012 payroll costs.

In conclusion, I believe Canadians expect their government to work in their best interests. They want their government to stay focused on jobs and the economy. The best way to do this is to move forward with the legislation so we can ensure that the many important measures it contains, essential to ensuring the continuation of our recovery, are done. That is what Canadians want and that is what this government intends to do.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask more or less the same question I asked the member earlier. Either she did not understand the question, or she did not want to answer. It was about navigable waters.

In her speech, the member said that today's bill was exactly what the government tabled seven months ago: the 2012 budget, a book that several members have shown us. That was the first thing she said. However, changes to navigable waters in Bill C-45 were not mentioned in the March 2012 budget.

Can she explain why Bill C-45 includes references to the Navigable Waters Protection Act even though the March 2012 budget did not mention it? Can she explain why references to the environment were removed from the Government of Canada's website after we pointed out that the Navigable Waters Protection Act is in fact an environmental law?

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me preface everything I say by saying that this government is focused on jobs and growth. We do not want any impediments in place that would hamper jobs and growth in our country. We know the issues in the budget are available to all our provincial and municipal partners to make decisions on what would be best in their own areas to create jobs. In Newmarket—Aurora, we have people who are unemployed who are looking for opportunities and we know this budget would do that for them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question about pensions for the parliamentary secretary.

She waxed lyrical on how marvellous these pooled pensions, which the government introduced in its budget, were. I will acknowledge that we Liberals supported that measure but only because it is better than nothing. I submit that a supplementary Canada pension plan, which we proposed, would have been far superior. This is largely because the government's proposal is private sector and Canada has one of the highest management fees in the world, whereas the supplementary CPP would be much lower cost and would have provided competition for this private sector. As well, a difference of only one percentage point in the management fee can have a huge negative effect on a person's pension because of the power of compound interest.

While PRPPs are better than nothing, would the member not agree that, for the reasons I have just given, it would have been much better to have a supplementary Canada pension plan?

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me remind the hon. member that he had 13 long years in the House to do something about pension plans and did not approach them at all, ever. We are putting in place the opportunity for employers to have a pooled pension plan for their employees.

I come from small business. I have run a small business for a long time and I know many of my compatriots who are members of the Aurora and Newmarket chambers of commerce have had no access in the past to any sort of pension plan. We know this would offer them the opportunity to put a pension plan in place to offer more security for their employees. We know that any change to CPP requires agreement from all the provinces. We know that may be very difficult to get, so putting in place a pooled pension plan would give more options for more people to have security for the future.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the speech from my colleague from Newmarket—Aurora. I did speak a little about the pooled pension for individuals and organizations in my riding. I got very positive comments.

However, the member for Newmarket—Aurora also talked about small business. We celebrated Small Business Week just recently. I would like to know what her thoughts are in terms of the additional $1,000 in EI benefits that would be available to small businesses? Would that help small businesses and encourage future growth and job opportunities?

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it would absolutely help. It would allow those businesses that are on the verge of perhaps one more hire, because they need one more person, to make the positive decision to create that new job. That amount of payroll tax could have thrown them over the edge to not hiring that person.

This is a credit that would allow businesses to create more jobs. That is good for everyone in Canada.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to rise and speak to Bill C-45, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures. I want to start by talking about process, roles and responsibilities.

When I was elected as a member of Parliament to represent my constituents in these hallowed halls of our parliamentary democracy, I came here with the understanding that I had a key role to play in budgetary oversight, holding the government accountable for the decisions it makes in spending the hard-earned money of Canadians, and paying a great deal of attention and due diligence when it comes to fiduciary matters. However, last spring, I was prevented from doing that by the Trojan horse omnibus bill, a bill so thick and dense it is bigger than many telephone directories across this beautiful country.

During this process, the feedback from Canadians was that this was not parliamentary democracy and not acceptable. I heard from hundreds of my constituents and other Canadians who were a little shocked by a government burying so much and making such drastic changes in an omnibus bill, though when it was a government in waiting, it was always talking about transparency and accountability.

One would have thought that after having buried the deletion of immigration files, the gutting of environmental protections and many other areas that were in the previous bill, including changing the age for old age security, the Conservatives would have learned a lesson and decided to do things differently. However, it was a case of oh, no, when we came back this fall to face Bill C-45, the second budget implementation act, still the size of a phone book.

Once again, as an elected parliamentarian representing the beautiful riding of Newton—North Delta, a riding that is struggling with many issues that need to be addressed right now, I am faced with a piece of legislation that purports to be a budget implementation bill, but actually includes many new items.

I was in the House when the Minister of Finance told my colleagues to go and do their homework, that we had the budget and there was nothing new in it. However, it only took until the next morning for the media to pick up on all the new stuff that was in the budget. What became evident was that the minister himself had not done his homework and was not aware of what was in his own budget or was trying to fool Canadians by burying things in the budget and pretending they were not there.

One of those is the changes to our environmental protections such as the Navigable Waters Protection Act. People keep saying that it is not about water. However, as I keep asking: What do boats and ships travel on if not water? What are we thinking about navigating? It is not roads but waterways. Therefore, I do not see why there is that separation. Once again, here we are as parliamentarians being denied the right to exercise our fundamental responsibility and scrutinize and debate a budget.

I have heard colleague after colleague stand in the House to urge the government and the members across the aisle to just give us unanimous consent so that we can take portions of this budget to the appropriate committees—and there are not 45 of them—where these can be given due diligence and we can examine and amend these portions of the bill and engage Canadians in some of the discussions.

Once again, unanimous consent has not been given. My colleague from Halifax tried again today, and I was quite moved by her plea for the other side to be reasonable. However, the Conservatives were not reasonable.

One of the key points I keep hearing of this budget is that it is about job creation. However, the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer says that this budget implementation bill would actually cost over 43,000 Canadian jobs. Here we have an independent Parliamentary Budget Officer saying that, yet I hear colleague after colleague across the aisle keep talking about how this is going to be such a great boon to job growth. We know that is not so.

I am getting a little tired of all the breaks in this budget for small businesses. In my own background my family has been engaged in running small businesses and in my community the engine of our economy is our small family-owned businesses.

What great measure do we have built into this budget? What I am saying is that it does not go far enough. We need to support our small- and medium-size businesses by giving them the breaks, not the wealthy corporations that take the jobs and money out of the country. However, once again the government fails small- and medium-size businesses in this budget. All it has done in this budget is to provide them with a maximum of $1,000 in credits on new EI employer payments. That is it. To add insult to injury, that is only available to employers in the 2012 tax year.

By the time Bill C-45 passes through all stages, this tax credit will actually have expired. I say this even though the government has moved a time allocation motion so that the bill will pass through all of the stages at lightning speed, because the government has majority that it is determined to abuse.

The small- and medium-size businesses I talk to my riding need a lot more attention than this. They are very worried about where the government is taking us.

I am not going to spend too much time talking about environmental issues, because my colleague does such an excellent job on that at committee. She has raised those concerns ad nauseam.

Like other MPs, I get amazing emails from my riding. My colleague from Halifax read some of those into the record today. This morning I was responding to emails from my riding opposing the Enbridge pipeline and the gutting of environmental protections, and also about the lack of support for our young people to go out and get jobs.

I am getting so frustrated and tired of the constantly put idea that we are growing jobs, when I know it is the temporary foreign worker category that has increased by 200%. I want to see a real job-growth strategy by the government, instead of words, words and more useless words.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in last summer's omnibus bill the government actually deleted the applications of workers who had been waiting in a backlog for many years. In this particular bill, there is another change with respect to immigration, wherein people wanting to visit Canada will have to go through a different process. It is an attempt to establish some source of revenue or something of that nature within this particular bill.

I wonder if the member might comment on these two issues in the two separate budget bills that should ultimately have been brought forward in another form to enable us to deal with them in the immigration committee and possibly here on the floor of the House, as opposed to their being bundled and pushed through in a budget bill. I say this because these are fact very important issues in their own right and should have extra consideration.

Does she not agree?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of serving with my colleague from Winnipeg North on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, where we have shared our frustrations.

The member may not know this, but yesterday I sought the unanimous consent of the House to take the portion of this budget dealing with immigration and send it to the committee, where we could give it proper oversight and ensure that we not make our immigration policy on the back of a napkin.

It seems to me that we are sending the following message to people around the world that when one plays by the rules and is waiting in line to get into our country, we can arbitrarily pick a date and delete all of the applicants' files. That is not a message that I and the many Canadians I talk to want to send.

I am also saying that we have to look at the huge increase in temporary foreign workers and ensure that we do not go down the same path that led to the mistakes we made in the past. Let us hope that this does not lead to other apologies that we may have to make in the future.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question for my colleague is along the same lines as what was said earlier.

Several elements of this bill have nothing to do with the budget, nor are they necessarily connected in any way. I will go back to what one of my colleagues said. The chair of the Standing Committee on Finance asked a Liberal member if he agreed with a specific measure. Since we agree with some parts and disagree with others, should the bill not be split? We should have an opportunity to vote on specific elements of the bill instead of voting on a huge bill that lumps together many different parts. Omnibus bills prevent MPs from doing their job.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, recently, we have heard a lot from the other side of the House about our voting against this and that and the other thing. However, the Conservatives open up the prospect of such voting because they put so many things in a budget bill that are unpalatable to Canadians, and then insist on holding only one vote.

Here we are again. They wanted us to vote on raising the OAS recipients' age from 65 to 67. They put that into the same budget bill in which they put immigration changes and the gutting of the environmental act.

Let us have transparency. Let us see where each of the parliamentarians stands. Let us split up this budget and vote on these items separately so we can truly hold all MPs accountable.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am tremendously pleased to stand today and speak to Bill C-45, the second budget implementation bill, the jobs and growth act of 2012. I have heard the opposition say on many occasions that Bill C-45 is a large bill. Yes, it is, and necessarily so. One might ask why. It is because it is the comprehensive bill required for these economic times. It is comprised of hundreds of pages of technical amendments, as well as concrete policy that reflects, considers and demands our immediate attention.

Through extensive consultations with stakeholders, sector leaders, academics and everyday Canadians, we see a better way to keep our country economically robust, going forward. Bill C-45 is representative of broad-based opinion across this country. As such, our Conservative government was given a strong mandate in the last election to stay focused on what matters: creating jobs and growing the economy.

A strong economy is not just something that affects a few. It ultimately means more money in Canadians' pockets for their groceries, rent and child care expenses. It means a difference to many families that have been able to tuck away a few bucks in a savings account at the end of the month instead of living paycheque to paycheque or, sadly, in many cases, no paycheque at all. It could also mean a young couple can turn a dream of owning a house into a reality. It means that a small business owner can hire an extra couple of employees or more this year, or a farmer can continue to do what his father and grandfather have done on their land for generations.

What this bill does not do is what the socialist opposition on the other side believes the panacea for all circumstances is: raise taxes. Of the many tax increases the opposition has proposed, and we have heard it many times in the House and it bears repeating, the $21 billion carbon tax would decimate industry, transportation, commerce and negatively affect every citizen in the country. We vehemently disagree with that approach. Raising taxes is not the answer. Raising taxes would be like killing the goose that lays the golden egg. Raising taxes raises costs, decreases productivity, decreases competitiveness and, of course, kills jobs. Raising taxes crushes entrepreneurship and affects both small and large businesses. No one is exempt. It would result in no jobs and no money for groceries, housing, child care or any of the social necessities.

Bill C-45, in contrast, has initiatives that would build a strong economy, support Canadian families and communities, and create jobs. Importantly, it would respect taxpayers' dollars because we know how hard everyone works for every dollar earned. Let me take a moment to go over some of the initiatives that would create jobs and maintain and grow our strong economy.

First, let us talk business. Speaking from personal experience, I can assure everyone that as a small business owner for over 38 years who has employed hundreds of people, both I and our Conservative government understand and recognize that small business plays a tremendous and pivotal role in the economy and in the creation of jobs. Last year, 534,000 employers benefited from the hiring credit for small business. In Bill C-45 that credit of up to $1,000 will be extended for another year, which will encourage more hiring of employees and lower total business payroll taxes by $205 million. We will extend the capital cost allowance, creating an environment for more investment and more jobs.

The opposition criticizes this by saying we are giving money to large and small businesses. That is categorically wrong. Businesses must invest in capital assets, building or equipment, in order to receive that taxable credit. Let me use the example of a company in my riding, one of many. Proctor & Gamble is a large company and has invested significantly in new production lines by expanding facilities and purchasing equipment.

This investment and job creation results, of course, in more profitability for the company, but subsequently more taxes are then received by the various levels of government: federal, provincial and even municipal from the property tax point of view. More personal tax is also received from either added employees and/or the continuation of the good jobs they are paying taxes on now.

In addition, there are all kinds of side benefits from having a strong business community. This company, as an example, and its employees, are generous contributors to local fundraising, whether it is to the United Way or health care initiatives. The spinoff to our communities is absolutely tremendous. That is the genesis of job creation.

Jobs will also be created with many measures that we have introduced to promote interprovincial trade, to improve the legislative framework governing Canada's financial institutions and to facilitate cross-border travelling where the least delay is critical. At the border, time is money. Time spent on delay costs the Canadian economy and it costs us jobs.

We also need to remove bureaucratic obstacles and reduce fees for Canadian grain farmers, and we are doing that with the Canada Grain Act.

We are supporting Canada's commercial aviation sector, where we are leaders in the world. As an example, CAE simulators, a company out of Montreal, just had a new investment at CFB Trenton and other areas. It is taking advantage of our capital acquisition cost of new aircraft. Their training facilities are a huge boon for many areas and certainly for jobs in Canada.

Very important is our government's commitment to helping Canadian families and seniors. Bill C-45 contains measures to improve the registered disability savings plan and implement the tax framework for pooled registered retirement plans.

Initiatives in Bill C-45 also promote clean energy and promote the neutrality of the tax system by expanding tax relief for investment in clean energy generation equipment. This helps to keep Canadian dollars at home, which creates jobs and stimulates local economies.

We respect the Canadian taxpayer. We are moving to ensure that the pension plans of MPs, senators and federal public sector employees are not only sustainable, but financially responsible, fair and consistent with pension plans in the private sector.

We are proud that Canada has achieved the strongest economic performance of the G7, as verified by literally all international bodies, from the World Bank to the International Monetary Fund, and the list goes on.

Over 820,000 net new jobs have been created since 2009. These are numbers that the entire House can and should be proud of, but we know it is not enough as long as there are still too many Canadians looking for work.

On top of that, we have challenges. The global economy remains in a delicate condition, particularly in Europe and in the U.S., where they are encouraging and actually accumulating debts in excess of $1 trillion a year. That is definitely troublesome. Because of issues beyond our control, we must continue to focus on getting Canadians working and providing an economic climate where entrepreneurs and businesses are able to flourish and continue creating jobs.

The bill addresses, recognizes and builds upon our commitment to return to a balanced budget. We must pay down our debt. Debt is our mortgage on the future of our children. Canadians should be able to look ahead and see a bright future for themselves and their children. Our government is committed to working hard to make that a reality.

I would encourage members on all sides of the House. We have our challenges when we have different opinions, viewpoints or perspectives on an issue, but we can all commit to a passion for improving the lives of our citizens and our country. I certainly welcome comments from my colleagues on the other side of the House and I hope we can try to find a way to continue to work together to better society for Canadian citizens.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest and a measure of incredulity at my colleague's speech. He talked about a strong mandate. I would like to remind my friend across the way that the government is governing with less than 40% of voters. Voters for the government were less than 20% of the eligible voting population. This is not some kind of strong mandate that members have on the other side.

Yet the Conservatives have driven up the deficit in this country to where it is a record level in Canadian history, and here they are talking about debt reduction as though they were some kind of fiscally responsible government, instead of the cowboy capitalists that they are on that side of the House. Let us be honest about it.

I have a number of questions, but page 32 of the 2008 Conservative election platform clearly states that the government intended on a cap and trade program. You should read your program and your platform. My question—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please.

I would remind the hon. member to direct all of his comments to the Chair and not to his colleagues on the other side of the House. Could he get to the question, please?

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my apologies. I will focus my attention toward you and only you today.

My question to my hon. colleague across the way is this. How can the government table this budget implementation bill when the Parliamentary Budget Officer says it is going to actually reduce jobs in the country, not increase them?

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is very unfortunate that the member opposite does not seem to understand the reality of the electoral system in Canada. I can give him a bit of history on it. How many times in the history of our country has a government achieved a majority with over 50%? It is very seldom. We do not have a two-party system. We have a multi-party system. I was fortunate in my riding, I had over 50%. I had earned the support of enough people in our riding and I was very pleased to do that.

I can also recall that I was with the party at one point when we were reduced to two seats, yet we had 26% of the vote. There is always an imbalance and what is perceived to be an unfairness. However, the reality is that it is the number of seats in the House of Commons and if a party has 50% plus 1%, it has a majority. We have substantially more than that and thank goodness, because we are not held in a situation of complete stagnation and deadlock, in gridlock, as they are in the States. We can actually get something done here.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about improving the lives of all Canadians and I respect his comments. We have consistently tried to do that here in terms of policy ideas coming from the Liberal Party. The best example I can give of that is the old age supplement. The government is cutting back and now suggesting that people would retire at age 67. At the end of the day, that would put more Canadian citizens into poverty.

When we look at the facts and the facts are very clear, independent sources say there is no crisis and Canada can afford to keep it at age 65.

I wonder if the member could provide his personal take on why or how the government can justify increasing the retirement age from 65 to 67, when the facts speak differently and we could improve the lives of Canadian seniors by allowing them to continue to retire at age 65?

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can speak from first-hand experience, being a senior.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

I know it does not seem possible. I only appear to be 35 years old.

One of the problems we have is that the hon. member across said there is no crisis. That was also mentioned by the leader of the official opposition. A government has a responsibility to prevent a crisis, not to act when there is a crisis. We are thinking ahead. That is what a prudent government does. It plans for the future.

One does not have to be an international economist to recognize that there is a very simple equation here. We have people growing older. We have a growing segment of seniors who will be eligible for pensions. People are living longer who are going to be receiving pensions for a significant amount of time, and there are fewer and fewer people paying into the capacity. It was 10:1 or 12:1, and very shortly, in the near future, 15 to 20 years down the road, it is going to be 4:1. That is not sustainable.

A prudent government thinks ahead, plans ahead and delivers results, not just for now but for later. Would it be a challenge to move to it immediately? Absolutely. I agree with my hon. colleague there. That is why we have given a significant amount of time to be able to work and provide the acclimatization that is necessary.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to show my support for Bill C-45, Jobs and Growth Act, 2012 and I am pleased to see our government continue to focus so squarely on the economic challenges facing our citizens, our communities and our country. Bill C-45 would implement key measures from the economic action plan 2012, to help grow Canada's economy, fuel job creation and secure Canada's long-term prosperity.

Throughout the year, I had the pleasure of hosting budget consultations in Barrie with a variety of stakeholders. The one common theme throughout has always been a focus on job creation and economic growth as being something fundamentally important to people from all different sectors in my community.

Each stakeholder has provided insightful contributions from the different aspects of our city, but they all shared the same concerns, as do most Canadians: ensuring good jobs are available, keeping taxes low and continuing the sensible investments being made to achieve our common goals of long-term growth and prosperity.

Through the steady leadership of our Prime Minister and our Minister of Finance, we have seen Canada's economy expand in 11 of the last 12 quarters, since mid-2009. We have seen Canada create more than 820,000 net new jobs over the same period, and Canada has had by far the best rate of job creation in the entire G7 since 2006. We have seen Canada maintain its triple A credit rating through the period of economic downturn and uncertainty, and we continue to see Canada with the lowest net debt to GDP ratio and the lowest overall tax rate on new business investment in the G7.

Both the independent International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development forecast that Canada will be at the head of the pack for economic growth in the G7 in the years ahead. I am particularly proud to share with the House what the head of the International Monetary Fund thinks of our government's handling of the economy since the global economic crisis hit in 2008. These comments came out just this week.

The IMF's Christine Lagarde declares that Canada's economy should be a model for the countries trying to fix their own financial systems. Just last week she said that Canada has been a leader in creating policies intended to rein in the buildup of household debt. She went on to say that Canada is identified around the globe by our values of coordination and consensus building, which have given our country what she called “influence beyond its years”.

Ms. Lagarde also applauded the decision of our finance minister to boost down payments on new mortgages for home buyers, as an example of household debt restraint that others should follow. She said:

All of these new reforms comprise the tools so far that will help us shape the future financial system. We must shape the system so it cannot again hold us ransom to the consequences of its failings.

A well-capitalized financial sector and a sound regulatory and supervisory system meant that financial institutions in Canada were better able to weather the 2008 global financial crisis than those in other countries. Indeed, the World Economic Forum has ranked Canada's banking system as the soundest in the world for five straight years. Our government is committed to maintaining this Canadian advantage.

Canada has made significant progress in implementing the G20 financial sector reform agenda and will continue to play a leadership role in promoting sound financial sector regulation internationally. Our government appreciates the IMF recognizing these important achievements.

However, in all this good news, the global economy remains fragile. Canada is not immune to the renewed weakness in the global economy, especially in Europe. In particular, Canada has been affected by the lower commodity prices that are dampening government revenue growth. We need to focus even more on jobs and promoting economic growth and realizing savings within government operations to ensure Canada's economic advantage remains strong into the long term.

At the same time, it is just as important that we continue making key investments in innovation and education to help make sure Canada continues to create good jobs and that Canadians are ready to fill them. We are supporting Canadian universities and researchers with a strengthened emphasis on projects that have a commercial potential.

Economic action plan 2012 took significant steps to encourage entrepreneurship, innovation and world-class research, with over $1.1 billion in significant investments for research and development, $500 million for venture capital, support for increased public and private research collaboration and much more.

Just last month, I was proud to see this have an effect in my own riding of Barrie, Ontario. I was proud to be on hand officially to open the IBM data and research centre in the south end of Barrie. This new data centre is part of a much larger project.

The federal government's $20 million investment was a catalyst for IBM's $213 million initiative to create a southern Ontario smart computing and innovation platform. Our government's investment targeted the creation of 145 full-time positions, high-skilled, high-paying, in three different cities in southern Ontario, including 45 positions at the Barrie site. These are not job transfers; they are new hires.

Our government's investment is also creating a research and development centre within the IBM site that is going to do research on clean energy, environmental systems and neural mapping. It is state-of-the-art research and it is exciting to see what a private and public partnership can do to create jobs in southern Ontario.

I would like to tell the House of another example of this focus on innovation by our government, which I have seen work first-hand in my riding. This summer, in August, I was on hand to see a company transfer its manufacturing from China back to Barrie. This company had outsourced its production of 18 jobs to China and decided to bring them back. This summer it opened up its manufacturing in Barrie again and with a $900,000 repayable loan from FedDev Ontario it was able to repatriate those jobs. This is an important sector. Southmedic is in the medical device sector, and right now this sector is valued at $6.4 billion in Canada. That is just the tip of the iceberg of what Canada is capable of, to see this sector grow.

These are two great examples of the types of partnerships that government is forging. These are the kinds of partnerships that will create a better future for all Canadians and, most important, new jobs.

Another great partnership that the economic action plan pledged to carry on was that of the continued cleanup of Lake Simcoe. In 2008, members may remember that this government made an unprecedented $30 million investment into the cleanup of Lake Simcoe. It was an extremely welcome initiative because Lake Simcoe and Kempenfelt Bay are certainly jewels that we treasure in Simcoe County. Phosphorous levels were at an all-time high, and we needed action to help reverse that trend because high phosphorous levels mean excessive weed growth. In Lake Simcoe it meant reduced marine habitat. We could not have this happen to what really was a jewel in our community.

The health of our lake is paramount to the future of the city of Barrie and all of Simcoe County and the surrounding areas. Tourism is vital to our local economy, and Lake Simcoe is certainly at the heart of the tourism market. I am happy to report that, since that investment of $30 million, phosphorous levels have gone down every year. We are making tremendous strides on the cleanup of Lake Simcoe, to make sure that future generations in Barrie and Simcoe County will have the same pristine lake that we have been able to enjoy over so many decades.

Economic action plan 2012 continues the commitment to cleanup Lake Simcoe. The five-year cleanup fund had expired, but the budget expressed a commitment to renew this fund and to continue the cleanup of Lake Simcoe. That is tremendously appreciated in our community, and I am so glad that our Minister of Finance had the wisdom to recognize that this was a fund and a partnership that was working. The federal dollars, leveraged with funds from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority and all the municipalities in Simcoe County, have made a profound impact on our local environment.

I am also pleased to see that Bill C-45 would extend the hiring credit for small businesses for another year. The credit of up to $1,000 against EI premiums is a great help to encourage more small businesses. Small businesses are the engine for job creation in Canada and are indispensable in their role as job creators. I see that every day in Barrie. Small businesses are at the heart of our community and it is great to see a budget that would help small businesses.

I realize I am limited in time. I want to commend my colleague, the Minister of Finance, on the jobs and growth act, 2012. The bill builds on terrific work laid out in the economic action plan and it meets the economic challenges facing our country head-on. On behalf of my constituents and the various stakeholders in Barrie, I want to sincerely thank the minister and his team for their hard work on what will be an excellent investment and understanding of the Canadian economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition is very concerned about the way that Bill C-45 was introduced. On a number of occasions, several of our members have asked that various specific sections of the bill be separated from the bill, since, in our opinion, those sections should be examined in detail on their own.

Yet, since the beginning of this debate, the government has been saying that all of these measures were announced in the 2012 budget. The Minister of Finance has also said it, but the NDP does not believe that such is the case.

Here is an excerpt from the 2012 budget.

Over the next few years, the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board (CEIFB) will continue to set the [EI premium] rate, but the Government will limit rate increases to no more than 5 cents each year until the EI Operating Account is balanced.

This measure appears in the 2012 budget, but we learned in the budget implementation bill that the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board is going to be abolished.

I would like the hon. member who just spoke to explain to us how the government can justify saying that the measures in this bill are in the budget when that is clearly not true of a number of items in the bill.

Second, I would like him to explain why the government is not being transparent and is refusing to allow a number of items that have nothing to do with the 2012 budget to be examined separately.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the length of the budget bill, it is certainly consistent with past budget bills we have seen, whether in a previous Liberal government or in recent budgets. Obviously, this budget was ambitious, and it is important to have an ambitious agenda that covers many areas because we are in the midst of a still very fragile global economy. The fact that Canada has led the way is because we are being so ambitious and doing everything possible to make sure we have a government that is lean and efficient and that creates jobs and focuses its efforts on creating jobs.

I realize the New Democrats have a different philosophy when it comes to budgets, and they are certainly entitled to disagree. I remember, when they were in power in Ontario, the results of their philosophy on governing was to run the government a massive deficit, to see Ontario lose 10,000 jobs and to shut down enrolment in medical schools in Ontario. The New Democrats cut key programs. That is certainly an approach we do not adopt here.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments about recognizing the importance of our lakes. He talked about it from a tourist point of view and from an economic point of view. It is also the most responsible thing to do in terms of our environment. The member seems to recognize the value of our lakes; yet the Conservative government, as of course Canadians know, would close the Environmental Lakes Area, the research station, and they know the profound effect that would have in terms of the quality of our lakes and rivers.

Does the member not see that the cut of service for the Environmental Lakes Area would have a negative impact on a major component of his speech, that being the importance of our lakes and having strong, healthy lakes going forward?

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member brought up the importance of our lakes because it was not just Lake Simcoe in whose cleanup the government invested funds; it was Lake Winnipeg. I am sure the member knows that our Prime Minister was in Manitoba on August 2 to make that profound commitment to Lake Winnipeg. I note that never in our history have we seen a federal government invest so much in cleaning up our lakes.

When the Liberals were in power, the party to which the member belongs, they completely declined to make any efforts to clean up Lake Winnipeg, and it was a shame. We saw Lake Winnipeg unfortunately reach its worst state because of their complete lack of interest in its health. It took a Conservative government and a Conservative Prime Minister to finally invest in cleaning up Lake Simcoe and Lake Winnipeg. If the member opposite is truly committed to supporting the cleanup of Lake Winnipeg, I would think he would support this budget wholeheartedly.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on that point, I can assure the member, whether by the Liberal federal-national administrations or other political parties at the provincial level, that there have been attempts in the past to improve the quality of our lakes. In good part, they have been very successful in doing that, but there is always room for improvement. What is clear, specifically with respect to this budget, is the government has deemed it necessary to get rid of the ELA, which will have a profound impact on the quality of freshwater going forward. It is most unfortunate that the member does not recognize that cut.

Generally speaking, it is great to speak on Bill C-45, which is unique legislation, a bill which ultimately is a cheap shot at democracy. Sometimes we take things for granted. Bill C-45, taken into consideration with its twin budget bill, which was brought in just prior to the summer break, is an insult to the House in terms of its attempt to make so many changes to legislation through the back door of a budget bill. Unfortunately, this is something that is not unique. The Conservative government has tried to bring in amendments through the back door of budget legislation for the last couple of years. However, with respect to an assault on parliamentary processes, this is by far the worst in the history of the House of Commons.

I found it interesting when the member for Wascana provided members this statement from 1994 made by our current Prime Minister when the Chrétien government had brought in a bill that was only 21 pages, compared to hundreds of pages, and dealt with only three or four items rather than dozens of items.

In 1994, with respect to the then prime minister, the current Prime Minister stated:

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

The current Prime Minister saw that as an assault on democracy and, in essence, challenged the then prime minister to break down that 21 page bill. Where is the Prime Minister today and how far has his opinions changed? Bringing in so many pieces of legislation through the back door of a budget is just wrong.

I would argue that even though many might say that this is somewhat of a boring issue, going into the next election Canadians will be reminded of how the government tried to bring forward a complete legislative agenda through the back door of a budget debate. We should be talking about is the bigger picture of budgets.

We saw surpluses in past government budgets, such as those of Paul Martin or Jean Chrétien. The current government inherited a surplus and turned it into a deficit situation.

With respect to equalization payments, there was a commitment made by the Liberal administrations to enhance and give what was necessary to ensure equality through equalization and transfer payments, including health transfers. In the previous decade, more money was provided to health transfers and equalization payments in the years of the Liberal administration than ever before. The health care accord, achieved by the Liberal administration, ultimately seized the number of dollars that we see going toward health care today.

The government of today tries to take credit for those health care transfers, but it was a Liberal administration that came up with the formula. It was a Liberal administration that got rid of the old tax credit formula that ultimately guaranteed the ongoing financial security of health care transfers well into the future. Those are the types of ideas that Liberal administrations have brought forward.

The Conservatives, on the other hand, have been lacking in ideas and initiatives. In spending billions of dollars, they have been able to identify some things that they can do. In spending that type of money, there will be some good things. However, it is the bigger picture at which we need to look.

Let us look at that bigger picture of the budget. I know the government wants us to focus on the budget. What is the government really doing? It is decreasing services. For people who are on employment insurance and who try to talk to a live person, good luck. For people who are trying to deal with immigration issues and want to talk to a live person, good luck. It is just not going to happen. It is difficult.

The government has cut back on thousands and thousands of civil servant jobs. Those jobs provide real live services to Canadians. On the other hand, the government finds it quite okay to increase the number of members of Parliament. It is saying that we need fewer civil servants and more politicians.

On that point, the Conservatives have the support of the New Democrats. The New Democrats also want to see more politicians inside the House of Commons. If they tuned in to what Canadians really want, it is quality service from the civil service. It is difficult to achieve that when the government is cutting thousands of jobs. What Canadians do not want to see is what the Conservatives and the NDP want, more politicians. That is what I mean about bad priorities.

There is a need for us to recognize that jobs are important. Shortly after the last federal election, the leader of the Liberal Party said that the three most important issues facing us were jobs, jobs and jobs. Jobs are important. It is through jobs and employment that we can generate wealth and assist more people out of economic disparity.

Canadians expect the government to do things in regard to jobs. Manitoba has been fairly hard hit. Good quality jobs are what Canadians want. The aerospace industry is very important to my home province and to other provinces. When Air Canada got rid of its overall maintenance, first by bringing it over to Aveos and then Aveos disposing of it, where was the Government of Canada? Where was the Prime Minister?

In the Air Canada Public Participation Act, those jobs were guaranteed to Manitoba. Manitoba had a legislative guarantee to keep those good, quality jobs. The government did nothing.

The bottom line is that jobs are important and the government has dropped the ball in creating good, quality jobs.

Crime prevention is important to the residents of Winnipeg North and to all Canadians. The government can talk a lot about getting tough on crime. Some would ultimately suggest it has been dumb on crime. What we really need is to get smart on crime and prevent crimes. We need programs that will prevent crimes from happening. We are not seeing that sort of development.

We want to look at health care and the important role the government needs to play in providing strong, national leadership on health care. That has been lacking. We need a new health care accord that will guarantee it well into the future.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Mr. Speaker, as we sit kitty-corner in the chamber, without any listening device, I could hear the member for Winnipeg North very well. I appreciate his passion, but it is misdirected.

I want to focus on a comment the member made about representation in the House of Commons.

We have a system where the House of Commons is a representation by population as much as possible. The member has said that he thinks there are too many politicians, or too many representatives of the people, which is another way of putting it.

Is he saying that he is not in favour of B.C., Alberta, Ontario or Quebec getting additional seats so they can be represented appropriately in this chamber? It is a bit rich for a member from Manitoba to say that a vote in Manitoba is worth more than a vote in Ontario.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, at the end of day, what the government was hoping to accomplish by increasing the number of members in Parliament could have been accomplished by maintaining the 308 representatives. By the way, the Prime Minister at one time suggested that Canada needed no more than 300 members of Parliament. However, in fact, the Liberal Party provided a document which demonstrated just how this could have been done. I suspect there is a good number of Conservative members who do not support an increase in the number of the members of Parliament.

I know the Liberal Party stands alone in recognizing what is of value and interest to all Canadians, which is that we do not need to increase the number of members of Parliament. Only the New Democrats and Conservatives believe we need to increase the number of MPs. We believe that it bad prioritizing.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member struggles for some sort of relevancy in the House, he perhaps wants to offer his own position as a sacrifice to Canada's fiscal health and welfare. Sitting down, perhaps, would be a start.

I want to ask my friend about the Liberal government's record around omnibus legislation. Right now the Liberals are supporting our push to split this omnibus bill, yet in the 1990s they did the same thing.

Furthermore, in talking about jobs, we see an actual reduction in jobs with the bill. Our young people will get no support or respite from this document. There is a 15% unemployment rate among young people, which is the official rate, but we know it is much larger.

Could my hon. friend tell me how this budget implementation bill reflects the fact that Canadians need to get back to work? We need strong legislation that supports Canadian workers and we do not see it here.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first, let me correct the member. He has absolutely no understanding in terms of what he is talking about if he believes Liberal omnibus bills were anywhere near to what the Conservative bill is.

If he is trying to say that the NDP would not bring in omnibus bills, what he needs to do is take a look at provincial jurisdictions where there have been NDP governments. The national government of Canada was no worse during the 1990s than the provincial NDP were in other jurisdictions. The member needs to get a better understanding. The NDP is not as innocent as he might like to think.

Regarding the youth issue, yes, youth unemployment is a serious issue, but does Bill C-45 deal with it? It would have been nice to have had more of a general discussion about the budget, but there is a challenge for the government to produce more for young people in Canada.

However, when the government cut back the Katimavik program, which was a wonderful Trudeau program, it demonstrated that the Conservatives did not really understand—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Peace River.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to stand in this House to speak in favour of Bill C-45, which truly would bring jobs and opportunity to Canada.

Today, I stand in this House, proud to be a representative of the Peace country. I represent the riding of Peace River, which includes the better part of northwestern Alberta. In this area, we know the value of jobs, opportunity and growth. Over the last number of years, that is exactly what we have seen.

I have often said that I am proud to represent the Peace country. It is a beautiful place, but its beauty is only a small reason for me to be so proud. The larger reason for me to be so proud to represent that constituency, the constituency that is home, that is where I was born and grew up, is that the people who live in the Peace country are dedicated to growing a local economy and building a stronger future, not only for our community but for the country in general.

A couple of weeks ago, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business announced that Grande Prairie, which is the largest urban centre in the riding I represent and the largest city in the Peace country, was recognized as the most entrepreneurial city. That was not just for this year. That was for the third year running.

The people in the Peace country understand the value of jobs and growth. This bill speaks to so many of the issues people from my riding have indicated are priorities for them. That is why I am so proud to stand in this House to support this bill.

I am proud to represent and work for the people of my riding. I am also proud to represent and work for Canadians in general, from coast to coast.

Over the last couple of years, I have had the privilege of serving in two specific and different roles. The first was as a commissioner on the Red Tape Reduction Commission, which travelled this country and heard from small business leaders across Canada. They talked about the necessity of Canada leading in reducing red tape, because one of the biggest hindrances Canadian businesses face is government-created red tape.

The second role I am going to speak to, generally, is my role as the chair of the Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Committee. I have served in this capacity since the last election, and I can tell members that it is truly a privilege. This budget has some important and good news for that role, as well.

I will speak, first, to my role as a commissioner on the Red Tape Reduction Commission.

I, along with six of my colleagues, seven MPs in total, as well as seven representatives from the private sector, made up this national commission.

For over a year and a half, we travelled the country of Canada, from one coast to the other, hearing from small business leaders who were concerned about so many things.

We know, and we knew going into this whole exercise, that Canadian small businesses, and businesses in general, have a huge burden when it comes to red tape. As a matter of fact, it is estimated that the cost of compliance with red tape created by government costs businesses across the country $30 billion on an annual basis. That is a huge amount of money. However, there is also the frustration and the missed opportunities businesses have when complying with unnecessary red tape when they could otherwise be growing their companies.

We heard a whole host of different concerns when it comes to the amount of paperwork government requires at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels, and, in some cases, the redundancy of that.

As we have seen, last year's budget began the process of dealing with some of the red tape irritants. Specifically, in the act we see before us today is an issue brought up on a regular basis when we travelled the country, namely, changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

We heard from small business owners across this country about the frustration as it relates to the construction industry and as it relates to industries that actually have to service and build bridges and waterway structures from coast to coast. From fishermen to people in the tourism industry to people in the forestry sector to people in the mining sector, we heard about the frustration as it relates to navigable waters.

I do not have to be a commissioner at the national level to know that this is an irritant. As a matter of fact, I have an example in my hand today. It was interesting that I heard a colleague from the NDP mention that she had never heard of anybody experiencing such frustration. I can say that on a regular basis I hear of business leaders and municipalities that have had major frustrations dealing with this outdated act.

Last year I received a letter from one of the largest forest products companies in my riding. It had an unfortunate circumstance when one of its temporary bridges was washed out. The forestry sector cannot rely solely on provincial and municipal roadways. It has to have an integrated roadway network constructed and owned by forestry companies, independent of government-owned infrastructure.

I will briefly read from the letter. It was as a result of the washout of a temporary bridge that had been in place. The forest company stated:

[It] has received all necessary approvals for the demolition and construction of a new bridge including approvals from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Alberta Environment and Water. Both agencies expedited their approvals

They ensured that all precautions were taken as they related to the environment and protection. It went on to explain the other things they oversaw.

What was clear was that what would be undertaken by the Navigable Waters Protection Act would simply be redundant. There had already been assurance that transportation on that river, which is not used for transportation, would not be impeded. What was interesting to me was that this company was proposing a bridge that would have less environmental impact, because it spanned the water from one coastline to the other without any disturbance of the banks. This bridge was going to be much taller, so it would limit less any traffic underneath it if, in fact, somebody wanted to canoe on what was a pretty small waterway. All of the things we would consider to be common sense had already been addressed by the company, yet there was an unnecessary delay.

Somebody in the House might ask who cares if there was a delay. Let me explain. I care. They described the bridge and its use. They stated:

The bridge is used to transport timber out of the forest. If the replacement is not in place for the remainder of the winter log-haul, the mill will not have enough timber for the coming year, resulting in catastrophic economic impacts on the company and the community.

I found out that there would be mass layoffs at one of the largest mills in the province of Alberta if this bridge was not replaced.

I can say that the changes to the navigation protection act are welcomed by industry, which creates jobs, opportunity and growth in my community, and also by municipalities that have had similar circumstances and frustrations, especially as they relate to responding quickly after infrastructure is damaged as a result of weather.

The second point I want to speak to is something important that has not been discussed in the House very often in this debate and unfortunately not at all by the opposition benches. It is the whole issue of the changes to the land designation for first nations lands.

In 1988, an amendment to the Indian Act was made to create the ability for first nations to have more control over their own land to create economic opportunity and prosperity for their communities. A couple of things are going to be changed as a result of the budget act in place today. The first is that we are going to create an environment in which the threshold for voting would be similar to that of a federal, provincial or municipal election. A simple majority would allow first nations to move forward with changes to the land designation. The second is that we are going to create less onerous and reduced red tape for first nations as it relates to getting government approval.

These are just two points. I would be happy to go further in answering questions on either of these or any other points.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy the discussions that go on in this place, particularly with this member, who is very sincere about the bill when he talks about it.

I have a question about the first part of his speech about navigable waters.

I have been approached by a number of municipal leaders in northern Ontario. They are concerned that when changes happen within waters within municipal boundaries, a downloading process will take place, and municipalities will now have to foot the cost of environmental assessments. If that is true, that is a real problem the government has not considered. If they are not right, I wonder if the member could explain to us exactly how an environmental assessment would now take place in navigable waters that are within municipal limits?.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that the primary goal of the Navigable Waters Protection Act is to preserve navigation. It is to ensure that people who want to use the waterway to float down the river are able to do that.

Of course, a lot has changed since the act was first put in place. We are talking about quite an archaic piece of legislation. It was a time when people were using canoes to transport goods for commerce. That does not happen anymore. We have different types of shipping and different mechanisms to transport our goods and services. Therefore, that provision within the bill has certainly changed based on new modes of transportation.

In terms of environmental assessments, these provisions of the past continue. There is no change to the protection of the environment as a result of changing the definition of what it is to navigate a river.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for not mentioning the Canadian Wheat Board in his speech, which, as I have told him several times, is really a red hot issue in my riding.

The member mentioned small business a number of times. I would like to ask him a question about taxation of small business. Thanks to the Conservative government, as of January 1 of next year, businesses, including small businesses, will pay an extra $410 million in EI premiums. Small businesses hate this tax, because it is a direct tax on jobs, and it affects them disproportionately. Partially in compensation, the government is providing a tax credit worth half that amount, $205 million, which means that net, the government is increasing taxes on small business to the tune of $205 million a year. How can the member support a bill that imposes big new taxes on small business? Is he that much in favour of higher taxes?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the simple answer is that if people have jobs, which our government has been preoccupied with creating, they will not have to collect EI. We know that the system works such that as people draw down on the system, more needs to be put into the bank account. If people are pulling out EI payments, more has to be put in. That is a principle everyone understands.

The principle most Canadians do not understand is that hard-working workers put money into the EI fund when the Liberals were in control of the coffers, and the Liberals decided to just raid the fund. We know where some of the money went. It was the $40 million that is still missing after the sponsorship scandal. Quite frankly, if that money had not been raided, I am certain that we would not have seen the fluctuations in the rates we have had to see to ensure that there is enough money to offset the cost.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a challenge to approach a bill of over 400 pages covering 40 different laws and have 10 minutes to try to make my way through it. I appreciate this chance to speak to the bill at second reading. I will of course be watching closely for work at committee and hope that some of the concerns I have about the bill now can be repaired at committee so that I will not have to put forward hundreds of amendments at report stage, which at this point appears likely.

The increasing use of omnibus bills is an affront to democracy. It is not appropriate and while other governments have perhaps trespassed close to the line before and created howls from the members of the opposition of the day, certainly the current Privy Council holds the Olympic world record for monster omnibus bills. No other government has come close.

Here I would like to commend all sides of the House for the fact we were able to split out and deal separately with MP pension reform. Many Canadians were happy to see that work. Perhaps we can do more by co-operating in the future to separate out pieces of bills that do not belong.

What things in this bill do not seem to belong at all in a proper budget bill? I will go quickly through some examples and then delve more deeply into two in particular. I do not think that removing the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission properly belongs in an omnibus bill. Why are we getting rid of it? It helps provide critical information to business on hazardous materials.

I lament the current government's further deep cuts to research and development credits, specifically the scientific research and experimental development tax credit. If we look at our economy, it is quite true that we have weathered the economic storm better than most nations around the world. We have a better regulated banking system quite frankly, and the current government can take no credit for that. Nonetheless, we did weather the storm better.

Nonetheless, if we look at the indicators of where we are falling behind, one area is productivity and productivity, which relates to R and D. Cutting R and D does not make sense. I am concerned about significant cuts in this omnibus bill to research and experimental development tax credits.

The Windsor-Detroit bridge is highlighted in the bill and many people have waited a long time to see improvements there. We know we have some private sector opposition to it from the other side of the border. It is an extremely bad precedent that the act specifies there will be no environmental assessment and that the following acts will be exempt from the procedures for the Windsor-Detroit bridge: There will be no Fisheries Act review, no involvement of the Species at Risk Act and there will be nothing from the Navigable Waters Protection Act. This precedent, by the way, is opposed by the member of Parliament from Windsor, who himself is a great proponent of getting this project done.

The assumption implicit in discarding legislative review under those acts is that somehow those acts are irrelevant to any project the Conservatives really care about. I am afraid that is the truth about how the government operates, but that does not make it any less lamentable to find this in the legislation.

One piece that I want to take more time to delve into may surprise the House. The bill is supposed to be about jobs and growth. We hear about that all the time. In this connection, I would mention a key economic sector in Canada that we do not hear very much about: tourism. Tourism represents more of Canada's GDP than agriculture, forestry and fisheries combined. It employs nearly 600,000 Canadians, generating nearly $80 billion in economic activity. However, we are losing ground in tourism.

In the year 2002, Canada was rated seventh in the world as a tourist destination among all nations. Guess what? In 2011, we dropped to eighteenth place. We dropped from seventh to eighteenth in just in 9 years. What happened? For one, there are the policies of the current government. One of the first things the Prime Minister did once forming government was to remove the GST credit that foreign visitors used to get. That credit was basically a goodwill gesture. It cost this country almost nothing, because so few people applied for it. However, the Conservatives got rid of it.

Then of course there was the move by the United States to require visitors to Canada and visitors to the U.S. who travel across our borders to have passports. We cannot blame any government for what the United States decides to do, but I think we should have pushed more forcefully against it. That measure has hurt tourism a lot, just as the general climate after 9/11 hurt tourism from the United States. However, we hurt the tourism sector even more in Bill C-38 by changing the rules around seasonal workers to make it harder for seasonal workers to leave employment in an industry such as tourism and be considered reliably available to the employer when the tourist season begins again.

However, now we have this, found on page 270 in division 16 under “immigration and refugee protection”, a whole new regime for tourists. It is little mentioned in debate on the omnibus bill but is for travellers to Canada. Any foreign national coming to Canada would now have to clear an application process in which they would have to answer questions before they planned their vacation. It would create what they call “an electronic travel authorization”, although that is not the language of the act but the language of the technical briefing. In short, there would be an electronic travel authorization.

I have a couple of concerns about this. One is that it would hurt tourism. There is no question about that. When we put in place visa requirements for countries like Mexico and the old Soviet bloc nations, it had an effect on tourism, as anything would that creates a barrier in a competitive tourist market where tourists can decide whether they want to take the train across Canada or a tour down the Rhine by boat. They have choices. If one government says, “We'll see if we'll let you in, fill out this form”, tourists will choose to go somewhere else. This would be a terrible mistake. It would be part of our over-security conscious agenda, that even if people want to visit Canada as tourists, we have the right to put them on a no-fly list to prevent their coming here. I am very concerned about that.

I will turn to the most egregious elements of Bill C-45, the changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. I hear my friends on the other side of the House refer to the many complaints about the act because only seasonally navigable water falls under the act. Surely, if that were the nature of the problem, they could deal with it by using a fly swatter. They did not need to bring in the wrecking ball. If that is the problem, get out the fly swatter. What the Conservatives would do under Bill C-45 would be to take on, I think, in the order of 99.5% of all the bodies of water within Canada, excluding our oceans, and remove them from the Navigable Waters Protection Act. They say that the act was never intended to be about navigable waters, that it was only supposed to be about navigation.

Just to go back to some constitutional law for purposes of setting the context, we cannot say with any sense or meaning that this bill was only intended to do thus and such when a bill was passed in 1882 or since 1867, since navigation is a head of power for the federal government. They cannot say that in 1867 the legislators never intended it to apply to the environmental assessment of a massive hydro dam. Of course, they did not. Neither did they intend, as Professor Peter Hogg has pointed out, that undertakings connecting the provinces would include an interprovincial telephone system. It had not been invented yet. Moreover, as Professor Hogg pointed out in one of his constitutional law texts, “[I]t is well established that the general language used to describe the classes of subjects (or heads of power) is not frozen in the sense in which it would have been understood in 1867”. Then he goes on to say, “On the contrary, the words of the Act are to be given a "progressive interpretation", so that they are continuously adapted to new conditions and new ideas”. Or, as a member of the high court, Lord Sankey, ruled in 1930, “The British North America Act planted in Canada a living tree capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits”.

Therefore, it is entirely absurd to hear the government members continually tell us that the Fisheries Act was only supposed to be about fisheries for all time, not fish; and that the Navigable Waters Protection Act was never about waters, but only about navigation. That is bad in law, it is bad in theory and it is bad public policy. It is also false. These laws have been fundamental to environmental law in Canada.

However, I ask the question: If it is about navigation, why would the Conservatives take a wrecking ball to navigation? In the bill, they have protected lakes in precious cottage country, close to where people live, where they claim there are all the complaints, and eliminated the law for the vast tens of thousands or millions of hectares of Canada where the lakes are not cottage country. They would eliminate the protection on all but 62 rivers and 97 lakes. Who would step up to protect our rights of navigation?

Under constitutional law, no province is allowed to step up and fill the void when the federal government runs from its responsibilities under the Constitution. It is unprecedented in the history of Canada that the federal government would willingly and deliberately remove itself from a field in which it is empowered under our Constitution. It would leave no protection for navigation, no protection for recreational use, no protection for rafting or kayaking and, in the process, would eliminate environmental law for most of Canada's waters.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in her speech the hon. member referred to the electronic travel authorization, a mechanism that is actually designed to facilitate travel to Canada for low risk travellers. It would help us identify those who are of higher risk before they come to Canada. We are living in a day and age when security is of primary concern.

My question to the hon. member is simply this: Does it not make sense to work with our partners around the world to ensure that programs like the ETA are in place so that we can better protect our communities, our children and families and the places they shop or go to school from high risk situations? We need to ensure as a government that people who come to this country are of no risk to Canadian citizens.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have to get the balance right. Of course, we expect Canadian intelligence and security services to work diligently to prevent people who pose a danger to Canada from visiting Canada.

However, the idea that that this would facilitate tourism is clearly contrary to the facts. Tourists to Canada will be required to go online or fill out a paper form. Indeed, they must have that form with them or they will not be able to get into Canada. What kind of message does that send to tourists?

I think we have the balance quite wrong. If we want to ensure that no tourists come to Canada who could ever present a risk, then I suggest we ban tourism. However, to pretend that this would somehow facilitate tourism is simply false.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech. I really enjoy asking this member questions about the environment, a subject she knows very well. She makes an important contribution here in the House of Commons.

The Conservatives deleted the word “environment” from their website when the NDP pointed out that the Navigable Waters Protection Act was in fact an environmental law and that the website explicitly said that it protected the environment. A few minutes or hours later, all references to the word “environment” were deleted from the website, as if by chance. I do not imagine it was planned.

What does my colleague think of what the Conservatives did? Does she believe that that legislation helped protect the environment?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. This is indeed every interesting.

I found it very amusing when the hon. NDP member for Halifax asked the government ministers questions about the removal of the word “environment” from the website regarding the Navigable Waters Protection Act. This is a recurring theme. I hope I explained that under the Constitution, the federal government has a responsibility to protect rights of navigation. This is implicit in the Constitution. It includes the protection of navigable waters.

Over time, given the rise in environmental concerns, the Navigable Waters Protection Act became an environmental law. That is why the website used the word “environment” and why the changes currently proposed in Bill C-45 are really dangerous for most of Canada's bodies of water.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled today to stand in support of Bill C-45.

The many Canadians I speak to are refreshed and excited to finally have a stable majority government that does exactly what it told voters it would do when it ran for election.

We are focusing on Canadians' priorities at a time when strong, steady economic leadership is needed. Canadians elected our government to work at building a stronger and more prosperous Canada, and that is what we have done.

We promised to streamline bureaucratic processing and build a leaner and more effective public service. We promised to eliminate government duplication, red tape and unnecessary paperwork. We promised to respect taxpayers' dollars and eliminate the deficit without raising taxes or cutting transfers. We promised to ensure the long-term sustainability of social programs, and we promised to aggressively implement pro-growth economic initiatives to create jobs.

In every area I just outlined, our government is delivering and there is no doubt that our economic action plan is working. Over 820,000 net new jobs have been created, most of them full-time, most of them in the private sector. Our debt-to-GDP ratio remains the lowest in the G7 by far, and just yesterday it was reaffirmed that we remain on track for balanced budgets. Moreover, the OECD and the IMF predict that Canada's economic growth will be among the strongest in the G7 over the next two years. The World Economic Forum has said that our banks are the soundest in the world. Forbes magazine has ranked Canada as the best place to do business in the world, and the IMF recently singled out Canada as an economic model for the world to follow.

Canadians know that our plan is working, and budget 2012 continues to build on the great progress we have made. Perhaps most exciting is how our plan, the direction of this government, is delivering results in my riding of Brant.

Like many communities in southwestern Ontario, the economy of Brant is evolving from large-scale historic heavy industrial manufacturing to value-added, small- and medium-size companies. Brant has a rich history of heavy industrial manufacturing dating back to the turn of the century when Brantford was the third largest economy in Canada, only behind Toronto and Montreal. We revolutionized the farm in our community by building the first tractors that were sold around the world, but recently, due to the global economic climate and necessity, Brantford has been in a large transition. I like to think of Brantford because of the great influence that post-secondary education has had on our community. Here I like to think that we are in our sophomore year.

Manufacturing continues to evolve. As our mayor so rightfully states, our goal is to build a 21st century city and county, and we are excited about our future. I will highlight the large influence of post-secondary growth in our community later in my speech.

Canada is attracting the world's attention as countries look to safe havens for trade and investment, and our government's smart economic policies are giving Brant businesses a competitive advantage to capitalize on these new opportunities. Our plan to keep taxes low, cut red tape, promote investment and aggressively expand trade is just what manufacturers and exporters need in our riding.

Cutting red tape and the small business hiring tax credit in our budget 2012 are things that I am intimately familiar with, having been a business person in the building industry who owned his own company for over 23 years. I have held many economic round tables in our community, and the two comments that keep coming back over and over again are the need to help small business hire new employees and for us to cut red tape to make the administrative side of business easier.

Our government is also supporting and investing in post-secondary expansion, which is attracting students, businesses, jobs and investment to our city and our now thriving downtown core. Our government has invested $13 million for the Laurier Research and Academic Centre and recently announced $16.7 million for the Laurier/YMCA Athletic Complex.

Here are some interesting statistics. In a 2011 analysis commissioned by the City of Brantford, the number of Brantford businesses reporting a positive impact from post-secondary institutions tripled to 47%, and that was up from 15% in 2005. Over the past dozen years, institutions have invested $130 million in Brantford's downtown core, a downtown core by the way that desperately needed an injection of people and investment.

I am thrilled to stand in support of Canada's economic action plan because it responds to the needs and priorities of my community and it is delivering results for the people of Brant. Members do not have to take my word for it. Here is what Scott Lyons of Extend Communications said about his company's plan to bring 70 new jobs into our downtown:

We are really excited about re-investing in the downtown. It's a vibrant and growing community down here. Brantford has a great workforce and we are excited to be expanding our workforce down here.

Here is another recent quote, from John Dimitrieff, CEO of Patriot Forge:

Although Patriot operates on both sides of the border, very soon Patriot will be undertaking a 35,000-foot expansion that will create jobs right here in Brantford. That we are choosing to invest and expand in Canada is due in large part to the current government’s plan that keeps taxes low and creates a competitive business environment.

The Massilly Group is delivering 100 new jobs to Brantford, because according to its CEO:

Brantford is an ideal location for us because of its close proximity to our core markets in Canada and the United States, its manufacturing-friendly business environment, and our ability to retain and add to our highly skilled workforce.

Wipro is actively recruiting resumés to fill more than 500 jobs it projects to create in our downtown core by 2013.

John Paul deBoer of Brant Screen Craft recently purchased a plant and moved 50 jobs to Brantford. He said:

...we had looked into locating our finishing and distribution facility in Michigan. The corporate tax cuts and programs provided by the Conservative government were the deciding factor to expand in Canada.

Brantford Mayor Chris Friel recently spoke about how small and medium-sized businesses are becoming a powerful engine of job growth in Brantford, as companies like Automodular, First Gulf, GreenMantra Recycling, and the Sunrise Warehousing Company grow and expand. He said:

It's not something that gets a lot of media attention but a lot of small to medium-sized businesses have opened in Brantford in the past year creating a lot of jobs. But I am not sure people realize or appreciate how important this is to the city.

Another statistic, office vacancy in Brantford, has been cut in half over the last two to three years. Also over the past two years, Brantford has risen 35 spots to number 64 on the CFIB “communities in boom” ranking of Canada's most entrepreneurial cities.

Cathy Oden of Chamber of Commerce Brantford-Brant describes how a growing entrepreneurial spirit is reviving our community:

They're opening up small restaurants, hair salons, spas and expanding retail locations. Typically, they are fulfilling a dream or desire that they have nurtured for some time.

She was speaking about that entrepreneurial spirit that we are feeling and experiencing.

Canada's economic action plan is supporting jobs and growth in my riding of Brant. The good news does not stop there. I would encourage all members of this House to support Bill C-45 on its speedy passage through the House of Commons.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very interesting speech. He spoke about small and medium-sized businesses and about jobs in his riding. He said that Bill C-45 could really help people and that his government had helped the small and medium-sized businesses in his riding.

While looking over Bill C-45, I noticed that one of the proposed measures is a temporary hiring tax credit for small businesses. It is the most significant job creation measure in this bill. However, this tax credit is temporary and the maximum amount is $1,000. In addition, it is only applicable in the 2012 tax year. In other words, this measure will no longer be available even before Bill C-45 is passed.

I would like my colleague to comment on this. What does he find of particular interest to small and medium-sized businesses in this bill?

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question because, again, this is my background in terms of having a company that employed on average 20 to 30 people at any given point in time.

On the extent of the small business tax credit, it is known that half a million employers in Canada have taken advantage of it. We are moving forward with the small business tax credit and extending it to businesses. This is a job creator.

The other item I mentioned in my speech that I would like to underscore is the fact that we are dealing with the red tape with which small business people generally have a hard time dealing. They do not have the resources to have someone on staff or to take on the additional costs of dealing with all the things that government demands of them on the administrative side of their businesses. When we look at Bill C-45 and the action we have taken, we see we are moving forward to make it a lot easier for small businesses to deal with government.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Brant County. I know that his background is in small business.

The statistics that the member has talked about in Brantford speak exponentially about not only the policies and legislation that has been brought forward by this government. If we follow this man back to his riding, members would understand the commitment he has had to rebuilding part of his county, Brantford, and I thank him for that.

I am going to follow up on the question from a colleague across the way because it was sort of minimizing of the significance of small businesses. We know that 98% of the businesses in this country are small businesses and they hire over 50% of the people.

I wonder if my colleague could expand a little beyond what the extension of a tax credit for small business is about. What has happened over time that it has built? This government builds continually from one budget to the other. What can the member help us with in terms of small businesses?

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the opportunity to describe in a little more detail what our policies have done for small business.

We have continued to make a more attractive environment for people to begin small businesses. Many communities like ours rely on the creation of new businesses. It is not a perfect world where all the companies within one's riding or community stay in business. Some companies shut down or move to other jurisdictions because of economic and competitive pressures. That is a reality. It is always fluid within our communities.

Therefore, Bill C-45 is important in what it does. It maintains the path we are taking to create the platform for businesses to prosper. They are the job creators. Small and medium-sized businesses employ 80% of the people in this country. We continue to lay out for Canadians exactly what we said we would, which are policies that align themselves to simplify being in business and to prospering and creating jobs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak against yet another omnibus budget bill brought forth by the Conservative government, as with its spring's Trojan horse budget bill. New Democrats oppose Bill C-45 both on content and process grounds.

Bill C-45 is over 400 pages long and contains a huge number of disparate measures. Despite what the minister says, not all of these measures were in the 2012 budget.

Bill C-45 would amend over 60 laws and even contains a totally new law. With this bill, the government is pursuing the same agenda it put forward in its Trojan Horse budget bill: it is giving the minister more power and weakening environmental protection legislation.

Once again, the Conservatives are trying to rush their legislative measures through Parliament without giving Canadians and their MPs a chance to examine those measures closely.

Writing about the Trojan Horse budget bill, conservative commentator Andrew Coyne said that there was something quite alarming about Parliament being obliged to rubber-stamp the government's whole legislative agenda at one go.

Alarming is right. This bill is reprehensible, and the NDP will not support it.

The Conservatives continue to claim that their budget is about job creation. However, like Bill C-38, Bill C-45 is lacking in significant measures to create jobs and stimulate growth in the long term.

Contrary to what my colleagues across the way have just said, tax credits to small business are short term, small in size and will only be available to employers for the 2012 taxation year, meaning they will almost be over by the time Bill C-45 is passed.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has stated, “In total, federal spending cuts could lead to the elimination of over 70,000 full-time equivalent positions”. These are both public and private sector losses. Therefore, where is the Canada-wide strategy to create good jobs, while 1.4 million Canadians are still unemployed? It is clear that the austerity plan of the Conservatives is not working. Instead it is a drag on our economy.

In fact, on the very day that this bill was released, the minister suggested a downgrade would be announced in the fall economic update, but despite the growing evidence that their plan is not working, the Conservatives are stubbornly refusing to change the course.

At a time when most Canadian businesses need to increase innovation and productivity to succeed in an increasingly competitive global economy, support to small business research and development, a driving force in innovation and productivity, has been cut.

In its prebudget consultation brief, BIOTECanada wrote:

Leading industrialized countries including Australia and France have recognized the spin-off benefits of investing in R&D tax credits and have recently made significant improvements to their respective programs. In order to ensure Canada retains a competitive edge in attracting foreign direct investment and growing domestic research and development capacity, the SR&ED program should be examined with an eye to ensuring that it remains a global leader.

Where is the minister's plan to make the SR&ED program a global leader? We are not seeing it.

At a time when countries around the world are recognizing that environmental sustainability and economic growth must go together, the Conservatives continue to barrel down the path of environmental deregulation without consultation.

In response to this spring's budget bill, Jessica Clogg of West Coast Environmental Law wrote:

By gutting Canada’s long-standing environmental laws, the budget bill gives big oil and gas companies what they've been asking for--fewer environmental safeguards so they can push through resource megaprojects with little regard to environmental damage...It is Canadians and our children who will pay the cost.

The Conservatives have clearly not learned their lesson on the environment and, instead, are further weakening our ability to protect the environment and ensure sustainable development for future generations. Bill C-45 completely guts the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Thousands of waterways will be left without protection, which will mean fewer environmental reviews by Transport Canada. In fact, Bill C-45 removes the words “water protection” from the name of the bill. It is now about “navigation protection”.

Eriel Deranger of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation has said:

This is unacceptable. They have made a unilateral decision to remove the protection of waterways without adequate consultation with First Nations and communities that rely on river systems for navigation and cultural practices protected under treaty.

Where is the plan to build a sustainable economy that will keep Canada competitive in the 21st century? This bill shows just how out of touch Conservatives are with the needs and goals of Canadians. Unfortunately for Canadians, the Conservatives want to convince us that massive omnibus budget bills and an increasing lack of consultation and decreasing government transparency are apparently the new normal.

I just returned from monitoring the elections in Ukraine. Ukrainians have faced numerous challenges and roadblocks when it comes to democracy and yet they keep fighting hard to exercise their democratic rights. In our country, we have a proud democratic tradition and yet we have a government that continues to undermine Parliament and the rights of Canadians with undemocratic bills. I find it particularly striking that I am standing in the House today debating an omnibus budget bill that continues on the disturbing Conservative trend of increasing the concentration of power and reducing government accountability.

Bill C-45 would eliminate a number of commissions, giving the ministers more power to make decisions without consultation or accountability.

Last spring, the NDP organized public consultations on the implementation of the Trojan Horse budget bill. During one of those consultations, Matthew Carroll of Leadnow said that Canadians want effective participatory democracy.

New Democrats will always be proud to stand up for transparency and accountability. They will always stand up for environmental protection. Canadians deserve a government that listens to the concerns of its people.

Last spring, the Conservatives used their Trojan Horse budget implementation bill to attack old age security, employment insurance and provincial health transfers. The Conservatives are transporting us back to the stone age in terms of environmental regulation.

This bill shows that the Conservatives did not listen to Canadians who were outraged by Bill C-38.

While Canadians want us to take action to protect our environment and grow a sustainable economy for the future, the Conservatives are focused on gutting environmental protection. While Canadians want increased transparency from their government, Conservatives are continuing to keep Canadians in the dark and make changes to laws without consultation.

New Democrats will oppose budget 2012 and its implementation bills unless amended to focus on the priorities of Canadians: creating good quality jobs, protecting our environment, strengthening our health care system, protecting retirement security for all and ensuring open and transparent government. Canadians deserve better.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in what the member had to say. She is a very kind and considerate member of Parliament. We do not always agree on issues, but disagreeing on issues of importance is hardly a crime.

One of the things the member brought up a number of times was the gutting of environmental regulations. I represent a large portion of rural Ontario, not an urban Toronto riding. A number of small municipalities, farmers and producers, for example, have to deal with overlapping regulations that cost a lot of money and really hurt rural economies in places like northern Ontario, eastern Ontario and, in fact, throughout the country. One thing the government has sought to do, because we have listened to municipal leaders, farmers and rural leaders, is get to a position of one project-one approval. That is a sensible position. The standards are identical for one project-one approval.

I would like very much for the member to speak to this. Does she believe in private property ownership rights and, if so, does she support the idea of one project-one approval?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his very kind words about me. Respect for our colleagues across the House is so important.

Many Canadians own their own homes and their own property. Of course we respect their rights with respect to their property. What Canadians expect for this and for future generations is that we are good stewards of our land, air and water. When we remove 27 of the 37 designated Canadian heritage rivers so they will no longer be subject to environmental protection and regulation, Canadians are concerned about that. The air we breathe, the food we eat, the water we drink, these are fundamental to our survival as a country and as a species. Canadians understand we need strong environmental protection, not gutted environmental protection, in order to defend the interests of Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the member's closing comments. Along with environmental research, the Environmental Lakes Area research station will now be closed under this administration.

Canadians as a whole recognize the importance of fresh water and research so we can maintain quality fresh water, which will be a wonderful commodity not only today but well into the future. I ultimately argue that the importance of the research station is becoming greater, not diminishing, yet we are seeing the government cut and close the research station.

Would she provide comment on that decision by the government?

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

Mr. Speaker, the closing of the Experimental Lakes Area project is one that has deeply troubled so many Canadians. This unique project brought together some of the finest scientific minds and was doing cutting edge research for such a long period of time. This was addressed in the spring budget implementation act. It is part of a growing trend of the government to silence, or layoff or underfund projects that it does not want to hear from.

We just have to look at the weather system, Hurricane Sandy, that has come up through North America over the last few days to see the importance of climate scientists and the kind of research that was done at the Experimental Lakes Area project. This is the kind of cutting edge work we should be investing in and not silencing.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House on behalf of the constituents of Northumberland—Quinte West to participate in the debate about the second budget bill, Bill C-45, our jobs and growth act, 2012, and how it would benefit all Canadians.

Our government's goal through the bill is to strengthen the financial security of Canadian workers and families to aid in job creation and long-term prosperity from coast to coast to coast.

Our jobs and growth act, 2012 would provide new support for families through improvements to the registered disability savings plan. This measure was designed to help ensure the long-term financial security of children with severe disabilities. To provide greater access to registered disability savings for small withdrawals, the 10-year-rule measure replaces the requirement to repay any Canada disability savings grants or Canada disability savings bonds paid into the plan in the 10 years preceding a withdrawal, with a requirement to pay these back at a fixed ratio to the amount withdrawn.

This will provide greater flexibility for parents who save in registered education savings plans for children with disabilities. This measure allows an investment income earned in an RESP to be transferred on a rollover basis to an RDSP, if the plans share a common beneficiary. This measure ensures that children with severe disabilities will be given the financial security that necessitates their daily lives into adulthood.

Our jobs and growth act, 2012 would ensure fairness to hard-working employees through taxable benefits from group sickness or accident insurance plans.

When an employer contributes an amount to a group sickness or accident insurance plan in respect of an employee, a taxable benefit is not currently realized by that employee. To encourage fair and neutral tax treatment for beneficiaries under group sickness or accident insurance plans, our government is proposing that the amount of the employer's contributions be a taxable benefit for the employee. Our jobs and growth act, 2012 proposes that the amount of an employer's contributions to a sickness or accident insurance plan is a taxable benefit and must be included in a person's income for the year in which the contributions are made.

Our jobs and growth act, 2012 would help small businesses grow and flourish through the small business hiring tax credit.

Our government is amending the Employment Insurance Act in order to extend the hiring credit for small businesses. Entrepreneurs and small businesses truly are the engine of our economy. The hiring credit for small businesses provides a credit of up to $1,000 against any potential increases in a firm's EI premiums from one year to the next. In the past this credit provided needed relief to small businesses by helping defray the costs of hiring new workers and allowing them to take advantage of emerging economic opportunities as the economy continues to recover amid continuing global economic uncertainty. The extension of this measure continues our government's strong record of support for small businesses, which includes help for entrepreneurs, a reduction in red tape and lower taxes for those businesses that stimulate our economy.

Our jobs and growth act, 2012 would provide support for seniors through retirement compensation arrangements, or RCAs. This measure would amend the Income Tax Act to allow a taxpayer under certain conditions to split his or her income from a retirement compensation arrangement with his or her spouse or common law partner.

Our government, through the jobs and growth act, 2012, also proposes to introduce new anti-avoidance rules to prevent the use of schemes that seek to take advantage of the features of the RCA rules to obtain unintended tax benefits. These rules will be similar to the existing rules for registered retirement savings plans, RRSPs, registered retirement income funds, RRIFs, and tax-free savings accounts, commonly known as TFSAs. The amendments to the retirement compensation arrangements would increase accountability and benefit seniors when they need it most.

Our jobs and growth act, 2012 would expand opportunities for aboriginal peoples to participate more fully in the economy. Maintaining the current designation provisions of the Indian Act would perpetuate the slow and cumbersome process that impedes economic development benefiting first nations on reserves. It would also undermine first nations governance while incurring unnecessary costs to Canada and first nations.

Reducing the timeframe for processing designation would align with the objectives of the 2009 federal framework for aboriginal economic development to enhance the value of aboriginal assets and remove impediments to developing the land and natural resource base on reserves. The amendments would also build on our government's commitment to ensure that aboriginal people benefit from economic development by streamlining land-related approval processes.

The government recognizes the contribution that aboriginal peoples can make to the labour force as the youngest and fastest-growing segment of the nation's population. Equipping first nations people with the skills and opportunities they need to fully participate in the economy is a priority both for this government and for first nation peoples. We have a plan to invest in first nation education on reserve, including early literacy programming and other supports and services to first nation schools and students.

Further, to the school programs, we propose school renovations on reserve, which would provide first nation youth with better learning environments. Our government is also committing to the introduction of a first nations education act and to working with willing partners to establish the structures and standards needed to support strong and accountable educational systems on reserve.

When it comes to job creation for first nations, our government will improve the incentives of the on-reserve income assistance program, while encouraging those who can work to access training that would improve their prospects for employment. Furthermore, our government would renew the urban aboriginal strategy to improve economic opportunities for aboriginal peoples living in urban centres.

I am content with the progress that has been made and the work that will continue to be done to balance the budget. In the past two years, we have already cut the deficit in half by ending our targeted and temporary stimulus as planned and by controlling growth and spending. Economic action plan 2012 would build on these efforts by implementing modern restraint in government spending and by ensuring that internal operations of the government are leaner and more efficient. In fact, our government is returning to balanced budgets, while continuing sustainable increases in transfers for health, education and social programs.

Going forward, I am proud to support the second budget bill, Bill C-45, for the benefits it would provide to the constituents of Northumberland—Quinte West and to Canadians across our great country.

I am prepared to answer any questions that may be posed.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the Conservatives talk about the budget. They often talk about their economic record, but they seem to have a selective memory when it comes to the economy. They often forget to mention that we currently have the largest deficit in the history of Canada because of the Conservative Party. We also have the largest trade deficit in the history of Canada. That is another fact that the government seems to overlook fairly often. In addition, there are 300,000 fewer manufacturing jobs than there were before the recession. The Conservatives seem to forget about all these facts in their speeches.

Can the member talk about these very real facts? Are there any solutions?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important at this stage to remind my hon. friend that since the depths of the recession we have created 820,000 net new jobs, one of the best records in the OECD. What my friend also forgets to mention is that Forbes magazine says that Canada is one of the best countries, if not the best country in the world, in which to invest.

He also needs to realize that we are not just talking about investment. We have been doing the things that a country must do to meet the challenges of the future. I admit we do still have too many people out of work and that is why this budget actually attacks that. How does it do it? It does it by making sure that small businesses continue to receive Government of Canada support by lowering their taxes and encouraging the hiring of new employees, as I mentioned in my speech, the $1,000 tax credit for hiring. This is huge in Northumberland—Quinte West and the member needs to know that this has received approval from almost every organization that represents small businesses as well as the Northumberland Manufacturers' Association.

The member quite rightly says that there are too many people out of work. We agree with that. That is what this budget does. It encourages people to find work and encourages small businesses to hire more people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for his speech. As with other Conservatives, he spends a lot of his time boasting about assistance for small business while, in fact, the opposite is the case.

It is true that there is a credit related to EI worth $205 million per year, but what he totally forgets to say is that the Conservatives are bringing in an increase in EI premiums as of January 1 next year worth $410 million. On a net basis, far from reducing the taxes of small businesses, Conservatives are increasing those taxes to the tune of $205 million based on higher EI premiums, which is a direct tax on jobs.

Is the member in love with higher taxes? How can he support this tax raising bill?