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.

One Canadian Economy Act

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is my first speech in the House this Parliament, and I would like to take some time to thank the constituents of Edmonton Strathcona for putting their trust in me again. I would also like to thank my incredible team, both in Edmonton and in Ottawa, for all the work they do to help me.

Of course, it would not be a maiden speech if I did not take a moment to thank my dear husband, Duncan, and my two children, Maclean and Keltie, for their support.

Tonight we are discussing the way that Bill C-5 is being pushed through Parliament, and I have to start by saying that Canadians are not short on ambition. Canadians want big, ambitious projects. We want nation-building projects that create good unionized jobs. We want to create secure futures for our families and for our communities, and we want to create infrastructure that meets the needs of the 21st century. We want that; that is clear. That is not up for debate in the House this evening.

In fact, I support the objectives of Bill C-5. The problem I have is that Canadians require a government that can actually deliver. We all want a government that has ambition and has big ideas, but we need a government that can deliver. The way that Bill C-5 has been drafted and the ham-fisted way the government is pushing it through mean that I have a lot of doubt that these projects will get built.

Today I rise to speak out against the way the Liberal government is attempting to ram through Bill C-5. This piece of legislation is not just flawed, but has dangerous overreach that threatens the democratic principles that underlie this House and, in fact, this country.

Let me be very clear. I support the idea of transformative investment. I support creating good unionized jobs. I support building infrastructure that will serve generations to come. However, we cannot and we must not trade away workers' protections, transparency, accountability, environmental protections and indigenous rights in the name of expediency. That is what this bill does. It is an attempt to push forward a nation-building agenda without democracy. That is a problem.

Let us look at what this bill does.

Bill C-5 has two parts, and the first part I have a lot of support for. This piece of legislation would make it easier for workers to work around this country. It would make it easier for us to have one Canadian economy, not 13 economies. It would help. There is potential for it to have some very good outcomes for workers. Of course, as parliamentarians, we have an obligation to do our due diligence to look at this legislation and ensure it is strong.

It is the second part of the legislation that I have really big problems with. It would expand federal authority over how major infrastructure projects are approved. It would centralize power in the hands of a few cabinet ministers, giving them sweeping discretion to decide which projects are strategic or urgent and therefore exempt from the usual federal processes: environmental reviews, consultation requirements, public debates, etc. This means that ministers, not Parliament, not indigenous groups and not Canadians, would decide what gets built.

I am from Alberta and I have seen what happens when decisions about lands and resources are made behind closed doors. I have seen what it looks like when economic development ignores environmental costs. Right now, Albertans are rightly furious with their provincial Conservative government, which has opened up coal mining in the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains once again. I have seen time and time again how indigenous communities are left out of decisions that directly impact their lives and futures. When I see legislation like Bill C-5, which strips away the few checks and safeguards we have, I cannot remain quiet.

This is not just about the Liberal government. Let us imagine a different government, perhaps a Conservative government with Pierre Poilievre. Under Bill C-5, that government would have the power to green-light mines, pipelines or highways without any meaningful environmental assessment, without any duty to consult with indigenous nations and without any debate in this House, all with the stroke of a pen.

Does this sound like the Canada that the Prime Minister ran on? Is this what he told Canadians they were voting for? I do not think so.

Let us be very clear about what kind of power grab this will actually mean on the ground. When transparent processes and meaningful consultation are taken away, what happens? Projects do not get built any faster. They end up in court. Communities feel shut out. Protests and blockades happen. Legal battles drag on for years, and we get no progress. We get gridlock.

This is not hypothetical. It is the history of Canada's broken attempts at nation-building without democracy. Let us remember when Stephen Harper tried something similar. He pushed for Bill C-45, the Jobs and Growth Act. It is a piece of legislation that was designed to streamline infrastructure approvals by curtailing environmental reviews and consultations. As political reporter Althia Raj has mentioned, the building Canada act, Bill C-5, is “the type of legislation that Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper might have been too timid to bring forward, fearing a public backlash.”

Now, why do we have this? It is because Canadians have rejected being out of decisions. Indigenous people have rejected being sidelined. Environmental groups have rejected the erasure of safeguards. Under Stephen Harper, nothing got built. Projects failed. The backlash was real, and the consequences were clear.

Bill C-5 is not some brand new plan. It is a recycled strategy. It is one that history tells us will not deliver on its promises, but instead will fuel conflict, division and delays. If the Liberal government wants to build real infrastructure, real jobs and real nation building, it needs to start by respecting democracy and not undermining it. If anyone is worried about the climate crisis, they should be even more concerned. This bill would allow projects to be declared strategic and pushed forward without evaluating their long-term impact on our water, air, wildlife or emissions. That is not planning for the future; that is gambling with the future.

I want to speak directly to the workers in my province, those who built this country and weathered the ups and downs, the booms and busts of Alberta's economy. They deserve good jobs. They deserve stability, but those things cannot happen if the federal government thinks that it can sidestep environmental and indigenous concerns. Anyone who has ever built anything knows it has to be built right the first time.

Let us not pretend that there is not an urgency. Donald Trump has turned everything on its head. There is an economic urgency to act. There is a climate crisis, and there is urgency to act.

Canadians need to build more. We need to start building more with Canadian workers, Canadian products and Canadian resources. It is urgent, but urgency does not give the Liberal government, or any government, a blank cheque. I am proud to be part of a party that fights for good jobs and good governance. I will not accept the false choice between economic ambition and democratic accountability. We can have both. In fact, we must.

I say to my colleagues in the House, let us build. Let us build things. Let us build big things with Canadian workers. Let us build things with Canadian products, but let us do it right. Let us protect workers' rights. Let us protect indigenous rights. Let us protect the environment. No more pushing legislation through, because what happens then is that nothing gets built.

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, a lot has been said this evening as far as the track records of the different parties in this place are concerned. I would just like to draw the member's attention to this. The Conservative omnibus bill, Bill C-45, is pretty infamous. It revised the Fisheries Act and removed sections of banned activities, which resulted in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat. It also altered the Navigable Waters Protection Act. There were so many pieces in the omnibus bill that were just an attack, an assault, I would say, on environmental protections in this country.

Could you comment further on the Conservatives' record as far as environmentalism is concerned?

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance for opening her speech with a condemnation of the loss of women's rights that appears to be imminent in the United States.

I want to address the issue of the budget implementation act by starting with a fair statement. I have gone through the bill, and of course it is very long. I do not find any hidden, sneaky things that should not be in a budget implementation bill, as we experienced in 2012 with two budget implementation bills, Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, that were disastrous. Then we had, in 2018, one sneaky thing that I lament, which was putting deferred prosecution agreements in the Criminal Code. That should not have been in a budget implementation act. It is hard to prove a negative, but right now it looks like there is nothing sneaky in this bill.

The main thing I want to ask the minister about is her reference to the climate crisis as an existential threat, which is defined as a threat to existence. It is a threat to the existence of a habitable planet. If we read the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's April 4 report, we are currently on a trajectory to an unlivable world. This budget is not taking us away from that trajectory; it doubles down on it.

Would the hon. minister consider re-examining this bill and all bills in relation to the IPCC report?

Admissibility of Amendments in the Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.

The point of order concerns the report that was just tabled: the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage respecting Bill C-10. I would respectfully submit that several of the amendments contained in that fifth report must be struck out because the committee exceeded its authority.

Last Monday, June 7, the House adopted a time allocation motion limiting committee deliberations to only five further hours. The part of the House's order that is relevant to this point of order says, at pages 104.3 and 104.4 of the Journals:

That, at the expiry of the time provided in this order for the committee stage, any proceedings before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on the said bill 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.

At the committee's second meeting, on Thursday, June 10, those five hours had expired and the Canadian heritage committee proceeded to the disposal of the committee stage of the bill, in accordance with the House's order.

The chair of the committee, the hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, informed the committee that, by the terms of the House's order, the amendments that had been placed on notice could not be moved and therefore could not be voted upon by the committee. The Liberal-Bloc-NDP majority on the committee, however, then overturned the chair's ruling, thereby forcing the committee to consider these amendments without any debate, without any opportunity to question expert witnesses from the department of Canadian Heritage and without any opportunity to hear the wording of the amendment read aloud.

Those events are recorded in the relevant minutes of proceedings for the committee's second meeting on June 10. The amendments subsequently considered by the committee are recorded in those minutes of proceedings, as well, for the committee's meeting on Friday, June 11. Both sets of minutes, as noted in the comment in the fifth report immediately preceding the chair's signature, have been laid upon the table, among others.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition says, at page 779:

Since a committee may appeal the decision of its Chair and reverse that decision, it may happen that a committee will report a bill with amendments that were initially ruled out of order by the Chair. The admissibility of those amendments, and of any other amendments made by a committee, may therefore be challenged on procedural grounds when the House resumes its consideration of the bill at report stage. The admissibility of the amendments is then determined by the Speaker of the House, whether in response to a point of order or on his or her own initiative.

That is why I am rising today on this point of order. In overturning the committee chair's ruling and forcing amendments that had not been properly moved to be voted upon, I respectfully submit that the committee exceeded its authority by contradicting the House's order, which required that “every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.”

To be clear, the questions necessary to dispose of the clause by clause consideration of the bill are questions on the clauses themselves, not amendments that have simply been placed on notice.

The Chair has previously considered a similar case, from which I believe in the current circumstances a distinction may be drawn.

On November 29, 2012, Mr. Speaker, one of your predecessors, the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, made a ruling at page 12,609 of the Debates, concerning the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Finance respecting Bill C-45, the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012. In that case, the committee had adopted a timetabling motion concerning its study of the bill. It contained language that was similar to that which the House adopted last week in its time allocation motion concerning Bill C-10.

In the case of the finance committee, the chair had made a similar ruling to the one made by the hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame and, again, the committee overturned that ruling.

Following a point of order in the House concerning the finance committee's report on the former Bill C-45, the former Speaker did not set aside the committee's report on the bill. The distinction between these two cases, I would argue, is that the finance committee was interpreting a motion that the committee itself had adopted. In the current case, seven members of the Canadian heritage committee substituted their own judgment for how an order of this House, voted upon by the entire House, should be interpreted.

We often refer to committees as masters of their own proceedings, but Bosc and Gagnon put that in a very important context at pages 1057 and 1058, which state:

The concept refers to the freedom committees normally have to organize their work as they see fit and the option they have of defining, on their own, certain rules of procedure that facilitate their proceedings.

These freedoms are not, however, total or absolute. First, it is useful to bear in mind that committees are creatures of the House. This means that they have no independent existence and are not permitted to take action unless they have been authorized or empowered to do so by the House.

While the case of former Bill C-45 was of a committee majority preferring its own interpretation of a committee motion, the current case of Bill C-10 is of a committee majority seeking to override the House's instruction. It was, to borrow the words of Bosc and Gagnon, taking an action that it was authorized or empowered by the House to do. Therefore, I would respectfully submit that the amendments made to clauses 8 through 47 of Bill C-10 must be ruled out of order and therefore struck from the fifth report.

I would further ask that the committee's consideration of amendments after the proceedings had been interrupted under the provisions of the time allocation order be disregarded by the Chair for the purposes of applying the note attached to Standing Order 76(1)(5) respecting the criteria considered by the Chair in the selection of motions at the report stage.

I do not make this point of order lightly. In fact, one of those amendments that I refer to was sponsored by my own party and several others were voted for by my colleagues, but that is beside the point. Our rules must be followed. Parliamentary procedure is not a body of play pretend rules that can just be set aside at the first moment of inconvenience. It does not matter whether these flawed decisions were taken by majority vote or even with unanimity because the rules of the House must be followed.

The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, in a different ruling on May 1, 2014, at page 4787 of the Debates, concerning Bill C-30, the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act, found that amendments that were adopted by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, without procedural objection and without dissent, had to be struck from the bill because the committee had acted outside of its authority in adopting them, commenting:

The Chair has no difficulty agreeing with the parliamentary secretary that the amendment is relevant to the subject matter of the bill. Indeed, as a fellow Saskatchewan MP who represents a large number of grain producers, I can certainly agree on the importance of this issue. As Speaker, however, not only can I not simply act according to my personal beliefs, I must respect House of Commons precedents which, in the case before us, are only too clear.

The correct place to put forward the amendments to clauses 8 through 47 of Bill C-10, in light of the proper application of a time allocation order, is at the report stage here on the floor of the House.

Additionally, and in the alternative to the matter I have already raised, I would also draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the amendment known as amendment LIB-9.1 that was made by the Canadian heritage committee to clause 23. The Chair ruled the particular amendment out of order for exceeding the scope of the bill and that it breached the so-called “parent act” rule, which is explained by Bosc and Gagnon at page 771, by proposing to amend a section of the Broadcasting Act which was not touched by the provisions of Bill C-10. The committee, however, voted to overturn the Chair's ruling in that regard as well.

In that particular case, the Chair may simply have to regard the fifth report and note that the amendment on its face does something which the committee was not permitted to do and therefore should be ruled out of order and struck from the fifth report.

The solution for the government here is, like the case of the former Bill C-30, to propose an amendment at third reading to recommit Bill C-10 to the Canadian heritage committee so it may, once properly instructed and empowered, make Liberal-9.1 amendment in the proper manner.

Instruction to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, this motion directs the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to undertake a comprehensive study on federal policies and legislation relating to fresh water, and we do need changes to our laws on fresh water.

Canada is facing new and intensifying water challenges and we need to modernize our approach to freshwater management along with Canada’s outdated federal freshwater legislation. However, the government has committed to the creation of a Canada water agency and it is aware of the most significant flaws in our waters laws. Therefore, it is important that this study not stop, pause or slow down the creation of the Canada water agency or the updating of the Canada Water Act.

There is no denying that the challenges we face when it comes to the protection and sustainability of our fresh water have changed drastically over the past few decades. This is why we need a new approach to freshwater management. If we want to ensure Canada’s waters are resilient to climate change, safe for human health and sustainable in the long term, we need to do this work.

We know that climate change is already impacting freshwater issues and the challenges are increasing in severity. However, climate change has also created new and complex issues, such as rising sea levels and increased severe weather systems. Addressing these challenges to our freshwater systems requires coordination and an integrated response at the federal level. Unfortunately our outdated federal water laws and policies failed to account for climate impacts both now and in the future.

In particular, water-based natural disasters like flooding and droughts, but also disasters like toxic algae blooms and climate fires, are increasing exponentially both in frequency and severity. This events cost governments billions of dollars, first in direct disaster assistance but also impact our economic revenue and indirectly cost billions more. Canada’s capacity to manage these events is severely hampered by a lack of data and reporting, a lack of national forecasting and prediction capacity and a failure to adequately incorporate climate change impacts.

I want to recognize my New Democrat colleague, the MP for London—Fanshawe, and her bill, Bill C-245, which calls for a freshwater strategy and also explicitly includes consultation with indigenous peoples. Indigenous water rights are inadequately recognized in our current water management systems.

We need to ensure that our policies are based on a new nation-to-nation governance paradigm, that our policies are consistent with the principles of reconciliation and that they are consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We need to ensure that all our water laws recognize indigenous nations’ inherent rights to self-determination.

In addition to these issues, our water management capacity is also fragmented across over 20 different federal departments and this governance model impedes governments at all levels across the country and makes our shared water challenges even more challenging. On top of that, watersheds and river basins are composed of many overlapping jurisdictions. Local, provincial, indigenous and federal governments have at times lacked the capacity or the means to effectively work together. Transboundary watersheds and river basins shared by Canada and the U.S. are also in need of governance renewal.

The first step to addressing this is to establish a Canada water agency. While the Liberals have committed to this in the most recent throne speech, which is a positive sign, we have heard many environmental promises from the government before. What we really want to see is action. The government has missed every climate target it has set. It is even failing to meet Stephen Harper’s weak climate targets. It said that it would have a plan to meet our international climate commitments “immediately” after the throne speech. Over a month has passed and still no sign of the plan.

While I am glad the water agency was mentioned in the throne speech, with no timeline attached and with Liberals not moving forward on the things they said they would tackle immediately, like climate targets, I have to admit that I am skeptical the government will put action behind its words. The water agency is important and we should, at the very least, be getting started now. Its mandate and functions should be co-developed with indigenous nations. They should also be developed in close collaboration with provincial and territorial governments, local authorities, water organizations and the public.

Creating the Canada water agency is just the first step. There is a huge need for broader reforms, including in the Canada Water Act, and the agency would ideally be the foundation needed to start transforming the way water is managed.

The Canada Water Act, which urgently needs updating, is Canada’s primary federal freshwater legislation. It has not been adequately or significantly updated in decades. It does not currently reflect or adequately respond to the issues that I outlined, including the impacts of climate change and addressing indigenous water rights. The act also needs to address the evolving role that the private insurance industry plays in flood risk mitigation and damage reduction. I want to acknowledge the work of FLOW, an organization that has been fighting for these issues for a long time.

In the same way the water agency needs to be co-developed with indigenous peoples, updating the Canada Water Act should involve a legislative, consent-based co-drafting process with indigenous nations. This process needs to be rooted in nation-to-nation relationships. It has to be consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

This motion, which instructs the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to review federal water policies, may help identify ways forward, but the study should not slow down the urgently needed work. There is no need to wait for the results of the study to begin updating the Canada Water Act.

Many organizations, like FLOW and others, have worked hard and identified comprehensive data on the gaps in our freshwater legislation and have identified ways forward. This important work will take time to co-develop with indigenous nations and other partners, and could and should start now.

One of the pieces mentioned in this motion is the Canadian Navigable Waters Act. In 2012, the Harper government's omnibus budget bill, Bill C-45, removed key legal protections from over 99% of Canada’s lakes and rivers. In 2015, the Liberals committed to reviewing the previous government's changes and to restore lost protections. Unfortunately, the amendments in the bill did not fully live up to the government's promise to restore lost protections of waterways. It restored some, and the restored legal protections are narrowly focused. They exclude environmental values and in some cases are substantially weaker than the pre-2012 version of the law. The consideration of environmental impacts of projects was not reinstated. However, despite these flaws, it does represent in general a positive step forward from the Harper era that decimated navigable water protections in Canada. I hope this motion can address some of the flaws that remain in this legislation.

I am passionate about this issue. Watershed protection is one of the things that got me involved in politics. I want to thank my sister, Georgia Collins, for her leadership when a contaminated soil dump was proposed at the head of the watershed that provided drinking water to her community of Shawnigan Lake. She helped mobilize her community and got me involved. It was being involved in that ultimately successful fight to stop the project that taught me about and sparked my passion for protecting fresh water, and taught me about the dangers that exist for Canada’s watersheds and river basins.

The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development has just started its first study this week. It concerns me that this motion circumvented the regular process of choosing studies at the steering committee, and I initially worried that it might impede the work of the committee or that it could slow down the needed work on freshwater legislation. However, I want to thank the member for Lac-Saint-Louis for his passion for freshwater protection and his willingness to work across party lines.

I have consulted with my colleague, the sponsor of Motion No. 34. I would like to move the following amendment. I hope he will accept it as a friendly amendment.

I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting subsection (i) and by replacing “(ii) schedule no fewer than 10 meetings, (iii)” with the following: “(i) schedule no fewer than seven meetings, (ii)”.

Impact Assessment Act

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the MP for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, for his fantastic work and his wonderful speech here in the House.

This bill could have been something incredible that reflected where we need to go as a country. Unfortunately, we find ourselves in a situation where it falls far short of where we need to be.

I want to focus on one particular area, and that is navigable waters. In 2012, Bill C-45 came to this House, causing a loss of key protections for navigable waters in Canada. One of the strongest critics of this bill and of the removal and stripping of protections at the time was the Liberal Party. We went from 2.5 million navigable rivers and lakes down to 159. There was a promise made by the Liberals during the campaign that they would return these strong protections to our waterways.

In my riding of Essex, I am surrounded by fresh water. We have Lake Erie on one side and Lake St. Clair on the other. The rivers, tributaries, and small lakes we have need protection under our government. Unfortunately, the Liberal government is breaking a promise it made to Canadians and is not returning those protections. As a matter of fact, the Liberals have gone further than that. They are narrowing the scope of the definition that was set by our courts to define any river or lake that is deep enough to float a boat as being a navigable water. They have changed that definition and narrowed it. They have exempted pipelines and transmission lines. They are allowing the minister or developers to bypass requirements for a transparent approval process.

I would like to ask my colleague how this failure, this broken promise, will impact the health of our navigable waters in Canada.

Motions in Amendment

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

Madam Speaker, I rise this morning to speak of a really terrible tragedy, which is the destruction of environmental law in this country, how it was done in 2012, and how the current government, despite promises, has failed to repair the damage. I do not enjoy watching a government make mistakes, even if they cost them it in the next election. I do not enjoy saying that the Prime Minister made a promise and now has broken another promise.

It is tragic because we could do better and we used to do better. I will briefly cover the history of environmental assessment in this country and why this bill is not acceptable as it currently stands. It could be made acceptable by accepting a lot of the amendments, particularly those put forward by the member for Edmonton Strathcona and by me. This bill is an omnibus bill that attempts to repair the damage, but first let us look at what was damaged.

Starting back in the early 1970s, the federal Government of Canada embarked on a commitment to environmental assessment. We were late, later than the U.S. government under Richard Nixon, which brought in something called the National Environmental Policy Act, which remains to this day far superior to Canadian law on environmental review.

By fluke, I actually participated in the very first panel review of environmental assessment in Canada in 1976. When I walked into the high school gym in Baddeck, Nova Scotia, I had no idea that it was the first time there had been a public panel review of a project, but the Wreck Cove hydroelectric plant on Cape Breton Island was the first. I participated in environmental reviews thereafter as a senior policy adviser to the federal minister of environment from 1986 to 1988.

I worked with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and its then head, the late Ray Robinson, on getting permission to take the guidelines order, which was a cabinet order for environmental review, and to strengthen it by creating an environmental law, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which was brought in under former prime minister Brian Mulroney and received royal assent under former prime minister Jean Chrétien.

That bill made it very clear, as did the previous guidelines order from 1973 onwards, that any time federal jurisdiction was affected, the government had an obligation to do an environmental review. Since the early guidelines order of the 1970s, federal jurisdiction was described as federal money, federal land. Any time federal jurisdiction, which over time was narrowed down to decisions made by federal ministers under certain bills, or any of those triggers were set off, there had to be at least a cursory screening of the projects. That was the state of environmental law, with many improvements, from the early 1970s until 2012.

The previous government, under Stephen Harper, brought in amendments in 2010. I certainly know that the committee heard from industry witnesses, the Mining Association of Canada in particular, that it thought everything was just about perfect in 2010. There was an attempt to avoid duplication, there was one project one assessment, early screening, and comprehensive study. Everybody knew what was happening.

Then in the spring of 2012, the previous government brought in Bill C-38. It was an omnibus bill. It changed 70 different laws in over 430 pages. When the Conservatives complain of lack of consultation on this one, they are right. However, they are in a glass house, and anyone who fought Bill C-38 has a huge pile of stones, because there was no consultation. We did not have briefings and the government did not accept a single amendment between first reading and royal assent. That bill repealed the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act brought in under former prime minister Brian Mulroney, and it devastated the prospect of any environmental review in this country when federal jurisdiction was impacted, unless it was a big project on a short list. That is the easiest way for me to explain what happened.

The Conservatives changed the triggers by eliminating federal land, federal money, and federal jurisdiction. They just said that if it were a big project, and this is their short list, then they would do a review, but would exclude most of the public and keep the review fast. This was a Harper invention, and it was really diabolical to say that when it were an environmental assessment of a pipeline, the Environmental Assessment Agency would not run it, but the National Energy Board; that when it were an environmental assessment of a nuclear project, it would be run by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission; and that if it were an environmental assessment of drilling on the offshore in Atlantic Canada and off Newfoundland, it would be the Canada-Newfoundland Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, and if it were off Nova Scotia, it would be the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board. This collective, which I will now refer to as the “energy regulators”, had never played a role in environmental assessment before. They are part of what was broken in Bill C-38.

My hon. friend from Lakeland wants to know why the Kinder Morgan mess is such a mess. It goes back to that assessment being handed to an agency not competent to do it, and giving it very short timelines, which forced Kinder Morgan to say that it could no longer respect procedural fairness even for the few intervenors it let in the door because of the timeline. The attitude was that we have cut out cross-examination of expert witnesses; we have to move this thing fast; we are just going to barrel through and ignore most of the evidence because of the short timeline. The mess that this country is in right now over Kinder Morgan can be layed directly at the door of Bill C-38 in the spring of 2012.

This legislation should have repaired all of that damage. That was a promise in the Liberal platform and the commitment in the mandate letter to ministers. What do we have now? We have an omnibus bill that deals with the impact assessment piece, that deals with the National Energy Board, to be renamed the Canadian energy regulator, and deals with the disaster that happened in Bill C-45 in the fall of 2012 when the government of the day gutted the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

These three pieces of legislation are fundamental to environmental law in this country and to energy policy, and they all need fixing, but should not be fixed in one omnibus bill.

I completely agree with the member for Lakeland that this legislation was forced through committee, but it was forced through the wrong committee. The environmental assessment piece should have gone to the environment committee. The NEB/Canadian energy regulator piece should have gone to natural resources committee. The Navigable Waters Protection Act piece should have gone to transport committee.

The omnibus bill in front of us, Bill C-69, has been inadequately studied despite heroic efforts by the chair of the environment and sustainable development committee. She did a great job. The government committee members worked really hard to improve the bill, but no members had enough time. We had a deadline. A hammer fell at 9 o'clock at night on the last chance to look at it. By 12:30 in the morning, most of the amendments that were accepted were never debated at committee, much less adequately studied. It is a tragedy.

Here is how “Harper-think” has survived and owns Bill C-69 in terms of environmental assessment. We have not restored the triggers. Federal funding of a project no longer triggers an environmental review, full stop. Federal lands still do, but federal jurisdiction decisions made by the Minister of Fisheries on the Fisheries Act do not trigger an environmental assessment. Decisions made by the Minister of Transport under the Navigable Waters Act do not trigger an environmental assessment. It will again be on the short list of big projects that we have still not seen because it is under consultation. The triggers are inadequate.

The scope of the reviews will move from there being about 4,000 to 5,000 projects a year being at least given a cursory review in the pre-2012 period to the current situation bequeathed to us by former prime minister Stephen Harper of a couple of dozen a year.

I should mention that there were two expert panels, one on the NEB and one on environmental assessment. Huge consultations were carried out. The speeches by the Liberals will probably reference the enormous level of consultation that took place before this legislation came out. It needs to be said on the record that the advice of the expert panels was ignored in both cases.

In terms of environmental assessment, what was ignored was the call to go back to the same triggers we have had since 1974: federal land, federal money, federal jurisdiction. The Liberals did not pay attention to that recommendation. They claim to have taken into account the recommendation that it be a single agency, but the bill says that when the impact assessment agency sets out a panel review in the case of a pipeline, the members of the Canadian energy regulator, which was the NEB, have to be on that panel.

More egregiously, despite the amendments accepted in committee, the government has rejected the one that says if it is the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board or the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum, board member of the panel can also sit as chairs. Only in those two instances were the amendments accepted at committee rejected by the government, and those boards were created by statute with the mandate to expand offshore oil and gas.

This bill is so bad that after decades of fighting for environmental assessment, I have to vote against it. That is why it is tragic. I would like to break down right now and weep for the loss of decades of experience. We know better than this.

Fisheries Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging we are on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people, and express gratitude to them for their generosity and patience. Meegwetch.

I also want to thank the hon. member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook for sharing his time with me, and acknowledge this shows a spirit of respect toward opposition benches from the current Liberal government. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, although I still must object to the use of time allocation and reducing time for debate in this place. However, the respect shown in shortening time but still allowing a member such as me to have at least one crack in second reading to this very important legislation is appreciated. It is particularly appreciated when I stand to speak, with shared time from a Liberal member, with the intention of attacking Liberal legislation, which I have done recently with shared time.

Today is a different occasion. Bill C-68 would repair the damage done to the Fisheries Act under former budget implementation omnibus bill, Bill C-38, in the spring of 2012, as the hon. member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook was just referencing. This bill goes a long way. Within the ambit of what the Minister of Fisheries can do, it would repair the damage done by omnibus budget bill, Bill C-38, in relation to the Fisheries Act. I want to speak to that, as well as the one aspect where it would not fully repair the damage.

This is definitely a historic piece of legislation. The Fisheries Act was brought in under Sir John A. Macdonald. Canada has had a fisheries act for 150 years. That act traditionally dealt with what is constitutionally enshrined as federal jurisdiction over fish, and some people may wonder where the environment landed in the Constitution of Canada and the British North America Act. Where was the environment? The fish are federal. The water is provincial if it is fresh water, and federal if it is ocean water, so there has always been a mixed jurisdiction over the environment.

Over fish, there has been no question. Fish are federal. In the early 1980s, this act received a significant improvement, which was to recognize that fish move around and they cannot be protected without protecting their habitat. The Fisheries Act was modernized with a real degree of environmental protection. It had always been a strong piece of environmental legislation, because if we protect fish then we tend to protect everything around them.

In this case, the Fisheries Act was improved in the early eighties by a former minister of fisheries, who by accident of history, happened to be the father of the current Minister of Fisheries. It was the Right. Hon. Roméo LeBlanc. We use the term “right honourable” because he went on to be our Governor General. He amended the Fisheries Act in the 1980s to include protection of fish habitat, requiring a permit from the federal Minister of Fisheries if that habitat was either temporarily or permanently harmed or damaged. This piece of legislation is the significant pillar upon which much of Canada's environmental regulation rested.

What happened in Bill C-38 in the spring of 2012 was a travesty that remains in the annals of parliamentary history as the single worst offence against environmental legislation and protection by any government ever. It was followed up with a second omnibus budget bill in the fall of 2012, Bill C-45, which took an axe to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. In the spring, Bill C-38 repealed the Environmental Assessment Act and replaced it with a bogus act, which I will return to and discuss. Bill C-38 also repealed the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, the National Roundtable on Environment and the Economy, and gutted the Fisheries Act.

Rather than go on about that, the hon. member who was just speaking referenced the changes made. I can tell people some of the changes that were made, and I was so pleased to see them repealed. When one opens a copy of Bill C-68, the first thing one sees is subclause 1(1), “The definitions commercial, Indigenous and recreational in subsection 2(1) of the Fisheries Act are repealed.” This is not a scientific thing. This is what Bill C-38 did to our Fisheries Act. Fish were no longer fish. They were only fish if they were commercial, indigenous, or recreational. That language came straight from a brief from industry. It did not come from civil servants within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It came from the Canadian Electricity Association. That is repealed.

This bill would bring back protections for habitat. It goes back to looking at some of the foundational pieces of how the Fisheries Act is supposed to work, and then it goes farther.

I have to say I was really surprised and pleased to find in the bill, for the first time ever, that the Fisheries Act will now prohibit the taking into captivity of whales. That was a very nice surprise. It is proposed section 23.1. I asked the minister the other day in debate if he would be prepared to expand this section with amendments, because over on the Senate side, the bill that was introduced by retired Senator Wilfred Moore and is currently sponsored by Senator Murray Sinclair, and I would be the sponsor of this bill if it ever makes it to the House, Bill S-203, would not only ban the taking of whales into captivity but the keeping of whales in captivity. I am hoping when this bill gets to the fisheries committee. We might be able to expand that section and amend it so that we can move ahead with the protection of whales.

This bill is also forward-looking by introducing more biodiversity provisions and the designation of areas as ecologically sensitive, work that can continue to expand the protection of our fisheries.

I will turn to where there are gaps. Because I completely support this bill, while I do hope for a few amendments, they come down to being tweaks.

Where does this bill fail to repair the damage of Bill C-38? It is in a part that is beyond the ability of the Minister of Fisheries to fix. That is the part about why Harper aimed at the Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and the Environmental Assessment Act.

There was not random violence in this vandalism; it was quite focused. It was focused on destroying the environmental assessment process so that we would no longer be reviewing 4,000 projects a year. Of those 4,000 projects a year that were reviewed under our former Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, most of them, about 95% of them, were reviewed through screenings that were paper exercises, that did not engage hearings, and so forth. However, it did mean that, at a very preliminary level, if there was a problem with a project, a red flag could go up, and it could be booted up for further study.

There is a reason that the Fisheries Act habitat provisions were repealed. They were one of the sections listed in our former Environmental Assessment Act under what was called the “law list”, where a minister giving a permit under section 35 of our former Fisheries Act automatically triggered that the decision was subject to an environmental assessment.

Similarly, why did the former government take a hatchet to the Navigable Waters Protection Act? Like the Fisheries Act, it is an act we have had around for a long time, since 1881. It was not an act that had impeded the development of Canada or we would never have had a railroad. Since 1881, we have had the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The previous government took a real axe to it. The current Minister of Transport has gone a long way toward fixing it under one portion of Bill C-69.

This is why. Navigable waters permits also were a trigger under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Do members see where I am going here? This was synchronized action. It was not random.

The current government has pledged to fix all of the damage done by the previous government to environmental laws. Where the failure to fix things is evident is in what is called the “impact assessment act” in Bill C-69. It has abandoned the concept of a law list altogether. It has abandoned the concept of having permits and environmental assessments required whenever federal money is engaged. In other words, the Harper imprint of going from 4,000 projects reviewed a year to a couple of dozen will remain the law of the land without significant improvement to Bill C-69. In particular, the decisions the Minister of Fisheries makes should be subject to an EA, just as the decisions of the Minister of Transport should be subject.

In my last minute, I want to turn our attention to something I hope the Minister of Fisheries will take up next, because he is doing a great job. I hope he will take up looking at open-pen salmon aquaculture. It must end. It is a threat to our wild salmon fishery on the Pacific coast. It is a threat to the depleted wild Atlantic salmon stocks on the Atlantic coast, where I am originally from. There is no Atlantic salmon fishery because it has been destroyed. However, there are still Atlantic salmon, which could restore themselves if they did not have to compete with the escapement of Atlantic salmon from fish farms in Atlantic Canada, and the destruction of habitat by those farms. On the west coast, these are not even indigenous species that are escaping and threatening our wild salmon.

Let us close down open-pen fisheries, give aquaculture to the Minister of Agriculture, have fish in swimming pools on land, and let the Minister of Fisheries protect our coastal ecosystems.

Criminal Code

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to much of the debate around omnibus bills. One of the things I would like to clarify is that “omnibus”, in and of itself, should not be a swear word in this House. There are many times that a certain piece of legislation will seek to amend different laws that are somewhat related. In this case, the vast majority of the legislation before us seeks to update our laws to reflect either a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada or provisions that are obsolete in the social context in which we live.

Although a certain piece of legislation might change different laws, when there is a common theme that renders them not completely unique, I do not think it is inappropriate.

There is improper use of omnibus bills, and the weight of the irony is crushing me as I stand here taking the question from a member of the opposition on this subject.

I have heard speeches in this House within the last hour that have discussed how the committee process worked the way it should. Members were able to identify problems and propose useful amendments. However, I cannot let this question go by without pointing to Bill C-38 and Bill C-45 in the Parliament of 2012, where I saw a budget erode the Fisheries Act protections and the navigable waters protection act that were so important to my community.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise this evening in adjournment proceedings to address a question I asked on April 5. I am extremely pleased that this question is still on the Order Paper because the matter has never been more timely. Since Bill C-38, Canada has been labouring under a broken environmental assessment process.

The day I rose to ask the question was the day the landmark report from the expert panel, convened by the hon. Minister of Environment and Climate Change, was reported back. My question for the Prime Minister at that time said that the expert panel, “makes a bold recommendation: get rid of the NEB's Environmental Assessment Agency, have a single authority, give it quasi-judicial powers.” I then asked the Prime Minister when we could see this recommendation legislated. Unfortunately, that question was asked in April, and April, May, and June passed without an answer to when we would see this legislated.

To my horror, right after the House rose for the summer, a discussion paper was put forward by the federal government that combined the four different tracks of consultation that had been going on: the expert panel on environmental assessments, the one I just mentioned; the expert panel on the National Energy Board; a statutory process under the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans looking at fixing the Fisheries Act; and the transport committee looking at the Navigable Waters Protection Act. This cluster of acts had been wrecked under the two omnibus budget bills of 2012, Bill C-38 in the spring and Bill C-45 in the fall.

The discussion paper put forward by the government, which was a mere 23 pages, made a hash of all of the recommendations and substantive efforts to improve those acts. Let me refer to what was discussed on environmental assessment. While the expert panel said that sustainability must be central to impact assessments, the word “sustainability” did not appear once in the discussion paper, suggesting how the Liberals plan to legislate to fulfill their campaign promises.

While the expert panel stated that the National Energy Board and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission should not do environmental reviews, that there had been a lack of public trust in their work, and that there should be a single agency with quasi-judicial powers, in the discussion document we find that for energy, nuclear projects, and offshore oil and gas there will be joint assessments. I am horrified that the National Energy Board and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission will still be engaged, and worse, the offshore petroleum boards will now get a new mandate to participate in environmental assessment, for which they are completely unprepared and incompetent.

The expert panel also said we must ensure that there be federal jurisdictional triggers whenever a project was on federal land and involved federal money or where the federal government was a proponent; in other words, those things that were originally found back in the guideline orders in the 1970s. The first federal environmental assessment was in a guideline order put forward by cabinet. It was then replaced with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, brought forward under the Mulroney government and brought into law under Chrétien. This scheme of laws was substantively and substantially amended over the years to further improve the process, to avoid duplicative processes, to have joint processes, to ensure that there was one project, one review, and so on. All of that was trashed by Bill C-38 in 2012.

To my horror now, as I stand before this House, if the discussion document is what is legislated, the chief recommendations of the expert panel will be trashed, ignored, and we will not see the restoration of environmental assessment as it existed in 2006.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat ironic to rise to speak to Bill C-44 just as a Speaker's ruling concludes, which cites the previous Speaker turning down an application for revisiting the treatment of members who belong to parties with fewer than 12 MPs. It remains a source of concern, and the more I dig into it, the more I discover we are the only Westminster democracy that has this system of two tiers of MPs from larger and smaller parties.

However, I do digress, because I have the opportunity now to speak on the report stage of Bill C-44. I appreciate that my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois and I share this distinction of being in an “all MPs are equal, but some are more equal than others” problem. We will continue to work on it.

I now have the honour of debating the omnibus budget bill, Bill C-44, at report stage. I find this so ironic, because I truly believed that the era of the omnibus budget bill would end when the new Liberal government took power. In fact, the new government promised that it would not use this strategy to cram several measures into one bill.

I want to start in this debate by setting out some of the background around the category of omnibus budget bills, because much has been said and only some of it, in my view, actually captures the problem that we have.

It needs to be said that omnibus budget bills were not offensive in the period of time before 2006. If we go back, we find that between 1994 and 2005, the average budget bill was 73.6 pages long. However, it is ironic—I am using the word “irony” a lot today and I apologize for that, but it does seem to be the appropriate word—that back in 1994, the then Reform Party MP and backbencher Stephen Harper objected vigorously to the 1994 omnibus budget bill put forward by former prime minister, the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien. The Reform MP, as he was then, said:

Mr. Speaker, I would argue that the subject matter of the bill is so diverse that a single vote on the content would put members in conflict with their own principles.

...there is a lack of relevancy of these issues. The omnibus bills we have before us attempt to amend several different existing laws.

...in the interest of democracy I ask: How can members represent their constituents on these various areas when they are forced to vote in a block on such legislation and on such concerns?

Now, that was referring to the omnibus budget bill of 1994. I would love to ask members here if they could guess how many pages it was, but I am not sure it would be proper form to ask members to shout out answers. However, I doubt that on a pop quiz members here assembled would guess that it was 24 pages long. Yes, Stephen Harper was complaining in 1994 about an omnibus budget bill of 24 pages.

The longest omnibus budget bill we had in the history of Canada, until Mr. Harper became prime minister, was when the Right Hon. Paul Martin was prime minister in the spring of 2005. He put forward the longest omnibus budget bill in Canadian history to that point. It was 120 pages long. I remember Stephen Harper complaining about it, because one of the measures the government was going to take in that omnibus budget bill was to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to ensure that greenhouse gases could be regulated under CEPA.

The Liberals defended it as a budget measure by saying that so much of the budget was their plan to reduce greenhouse gases that therefore this measure to amend CEPA was all right. In fact, in response to the vigorous criticism from opposition parties, the government of the day backed down and took that section out of the budget bill of 2005.

We began to see the use of omnibus budget bills a significant way in 2009 and 2010. The 2009 omnibus bill topped 580 pages, and the 2010 omnibus bill topped 883 pages, leading professor of political science and professor emeritus at Queen's University Ned Franks to write that the use of omnibus budget bills “subvert and evade the normal principles of parliamentary review of legislation.”

The use of them in a minority Parliament made sense, because how else could a governing party that had the minority of the vote force Parliament to accept measures that it would clearly, if given the opportunity, defeat? Since budgetary measures are confidence measures, and parties for one reason or another did not want to have an election quite yet, there was always a sort of propping up of the Conservatives in minority, and big changes were made to the Navigable Waters Protection Act and to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. They were pushed through because it was a minority Parliament, and putting them in a budget bill was a very clever device.

The fact that Stephen Harper continued to use them in majority had a lot to do with the fact that when the Conservatives had the majority, they moved things through very rapidly and precluded proper study at committee. We had the double-barrelled omnibus budget bills Bill C-38 and Bill C-45 in 2012 that basically dismantled Canadian environmental law, from the Fisheries Act to the Navigable Waters Protection Act to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to the National Energy Board Act itself.

What makes omnibus budget bills offensive? It is not solely because there are many bills or many measures all in one bill. The point of an omnibus bill, which is not offensive in and of itself, is that every measure relates to the same purpose or to an overriding theme. There is much that has been written and decreed by Speakers, going back to former Speaker Lucien Lamoureux, who was the first to rule on this in the 1960s. He said that they were moving in a direction where a government could say here is our bill, and it is all the legislative work of an entire session, but it is omnibus.

We have to be careful about omnibus bills. This one has too many measures that should not be in it, although it is a far cry from the abuse we saw in the 41st Parliament.

These are the measures that should not have been included in an omnibus budget bill, because they are not receiving proper study. One is a change to the Board of Internal Economy. It is very welcome that the Board of Internal Economy meetings would be made public, but back to the position of members of Parliament and parties with fewer than 12 MPs, we would not be given any more access to the Board of Internal Economy than the public would get. In other words, the larger parties could still decide that this should not be open to the public and close the meeting of the Board of Internal Economy, and those of us who are members of Parliament would not get any new access to the Board of Internal Economy, any more than the public would get. I find that unacceptable.

Second are the sections relating to the parliamentary budget officer. I provided numerous amendments at committee. My amendments were defeated. There were government amendments to try to deal with what has become very controversial. The Liberals promised in the platform that the parliamentary budget officer would be made an officer of Parliament and given independence, although they promised no more omnibus budget bills either, which they described in the 2015 platform as “undemocratic practice”. Many of the sticky ropes put around the parliamentary budget office, particularly in the first draft of this bill at first reading, reduced the independence of the PBO. Some of those have been improved, but not enough. We still have work plans the PBO has to file. They can make changes as situations change, but it is certainly not the independent officer of Parliament we expected to see.

As my time is running out, I will now turn to the infrastructure bank. If ever there was a piece of legislation that should have been stand-alone to be properly studied, it is the Canadian infrastructure bank. Given the lack of detail and precision, it still might not be as dangerous as it appears to be in some aspects, but we do know that the Auditor General in Ontario found that using privatization schemes for projects, so-called P3 projects, actually boosts the cost. The Ontario Auditor General found an $8 billion increase for the 74 projects studied.

In my last 10 seconds, I will merely say that at third reading, Bill C-44 is moving through this place too quickly. It is not as damaging an omnibus budget bill as the ones we saw in the 41st Parliament, but I urge the Liberal government to be far more cautious and to set a better standard on budget bills.

Navigation Protection Act

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-668, an act to amend the Navigation Protection Act (Colquitz River).

Mr. Speaker, I am introducing this private member's bill today to restore federal environmental protection for the Colquitz River system. Again, this is protection that was removed for all rivers, lakes and streams, on Vancouver Island by the Conservative government, in 2012, in Bill C-45.

The Colquitz River system drains a watershed of some 49 square kilometres in Greater Victoria, largely in the new riding of Esquimalt Saanich—Sooke. It begins in Elk and Beaver lakes, but also includes Swan and Blenkinsop lakes on its way to Portage Inlet. As a heavily urbanized watershed, the quality of the watershed is under constant threat. A wide variety of volunteer groups have undertaken efforts to preserve and enhance the Colquitz system and have had success in restoring a run of between 200 and 400 coho salmon and dozens of chum salmon in the river.

Restoring federal environmental protection to the Colquitz would support the important work of the Friends of Cuthbert Holmes Park, the Peninsula Streams Society, Friends of Swan Creek Watershed, the Habitat Acquisition Trust and the Colquitz Watershed stewardship project in restoring the important role of the Colquitz in our local ecosystem.

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

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-667, an act to amend the Navigation Protection Act (Sooke River).

Mr. Speaker, I am introducing this private member's bill today to restore federal environmental protection for the Sooke River by adding it to part 2 of the schedule of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. This is protection that was removed by the Conservative government, in 2012, in Bill C-45, the first of the omnibus budget bills.

The Sooke River system drains a watershed of some 403 square kilometres near the southern tip of Vancouver Island, in my riding. The rock falls at the Sooke River Potholes divide it into the Upper Sooke River and the Lower Sooke River systems.

Protection of the Sooke River watershed is particularly important for two quite separate reasons. The Upper Sooke watershed is the source of drinking water for the Greater Victoria area. The Lower Sooke River is becoming crucial for the restoration of local salmon runs, including chinook, which are critical to the survival of the southern resident killer whales.

Two volunteer-driven organizations, the Sooke Salmon Enhancement Society with its Jack Brooks hatchery on Rocky Creek and the Juan de Fuca Salmon Restoration Society with its Charters River Salmon Interpretive Centre and demonstration hatchery, are doing key work in salmon habitat restoration and enhancement of wild stocks. Restoring federal environmental protection will play an important role in ensuring the long-term health of the watershed so important to Greater Victoria's drinking water supply and to the continued success of salmon enhancement and habitat restoration work.

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

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeads

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to once again speak about the environment.

I am very pleased to support the motion that was moved by my colleague from Halifax, the NDP environment critic. She puts her heart and soul into protecting our environment. Again yesterday, she wanted to propose an emergency debate on the excessive melting of Arctic ice. The ice in the Arctic is melting very rapidly because of climate change. Unfortunately, the Conservatives denied the request for this debate. The member continues to speak out against a number of measures that affect the environment, measures passed by the Conservatives that undermine our environment, whether it be the elimination of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy or the gutting of all or almost all of our environmental protections. There is 1% left. The Conservatives did away with environmental assessments so that a number of projects could move forward without public consultation or oversight.

The member is an outstanding environment critic, and my colleague from Drummond, who is the deputy critic, also does a wonderful job. He works hard to protect our environment for future generations and to show the world that sustainable development and the economy go hand in hand and that companies are prepared to get on board. All that is missing is some political leadership from the Conservatives.

Today we are debating the following motion:

That, in the opinion of the House, microbeads in consumer products entering the environment could have serious harmful effects, and therefore the government should take immediate measures to add microbeads to the list of toxic substances managed by the government under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

Microbeads are toxic substances that are polluting our environment. They were patented to replace natural ingredients in beauty products, including face and body washes and toothpaste.

It is really troubling to think that these plastic substances are found in products that we put on our skin, in our toothpaste and in some other products. Multinational cosmetic companies should not play with our health, nor should they play with our environment. They should replace microbeads with the natural ingredients that were used prior to the 1990s.

Microbeads pose a real threat to the environment, and I will explain why during my speech, as many of my colleagues on all sides of the House have done. These microplastics are ingested by aquatic animals, including fish that are intended for human consumption. They therefore wind up in the food chain. They are toxic to our health, as well as to flora and fauna, but they allow companies to save a few pennies in the manufacturing of consumer products. That is completely unacceptable.

The worst part is that these tiny plastic fragments are not biodegradable. They accumulate and are transferred to animals that ingest them, and then we consume them.

Microbeads are the product of an industrial manufacturing philosophy that focuses only on profits, with no regard whatsoever for the environmental footprint. Cosmetic companies should take into account the impact that these ingredients have on the environment when they manufacture beauty products and other consumer products. Moreover, 21 countries around the world have already chosen to gradually eliminate microbeads from their products because they are aware of the negative effects those substances have. They need help from the government and legislation to ensure fair competition among all companies.

Many large corporations that care about the environment now employ life cycle analysis. What is life cycle analysis? It looks at the resources needed to manufacture a product and quantifies its potential impact on the environment. This standard is accepted by a vast network of companies and even has an ISO code. Companies that make cosmetics should use this analysis in manufacturing their products.

To encourage companies to adopt best practices, my colleague, the member for Halifax, suggested that this substance be included on the toxic substances list in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Why do we need to do that? We want Canadian companies to compete on a level playing field, as I said earlier. All companies, not just some of them, should follow the rules for respecting the environment. By banning microbeads in consumer products, we will ensure that all companies respect human health and the environment.

Passing this motion will enable companies to follow the example set by companies like The Body Shop that have pledged to eliminate microbeads from all of their products by the end of the year.

Also participating are Johnson & Johnson, Lush and Colgate-Palmolive. Microbeads are threatening the ecological health of the St. Lawrence. That is clear. Wastewater treatment plants cannot filter out microbeads because of their small size and buoyancy. This is affecting the river's plants and wildlife. Let us not forget that many sources of pollution are already affecting the health of the St. Lawrence. People in my riding, Beauharnois—Salaberry, are well aware of that.

Every year, the river becomes more acidic. Seaway navigation brings in dangerous invasive marine species, and fish fertility rates are being affected by pollution. Moreover, global warming is exacerbating the effects of pollution and acidification of the river, not to mention that water levels in the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes are falling year by year.

All these sources of pollution are affecting the flora and fauna of the St. Lawrence River and cost millions of dollars in water filtration and purification. We should not forget that the St. Lawrence River is a drinking water reservoir for an entire region of Canada. In Beauharnois, which is in my riding, an old cargo ship has been rusting since 2011 in Lac St-Louis, which feeds into the St. Lawrence. Our lax environmental legislation, which the government weakens with every budget, leave us powerless to do anything about these sources of pollution.

If these large vessels do not pose an immediate risk to the environment, they are left to deteriorate in public waters. However, their long-term presence has serious repercussions for the environment. There is also the economic impact of all this pollution. Sport fishermen are no longer catching trophy fish. This is the result of the gutting of environmental legislation by this Conservative government, which nonetheless calls itself the champion of sport fishing and hunting. However, the Conservatives do not see the contradiction.

In my region, ecotourism is one of the economic drivers threatened by pollution. Waterways are threatened by blue-green algae, another source of pollution created by products such as detergents and industrial soaps. Swimming, fishing and camping are all activities affected by the pollution of our environment.

Les Amis et riverains de la rivière Châteauguay, the Société du vieux canal de Beauharnois, and Les Amis de la réserve nationale de faune du Lac-Saint-François, which is in Dundee in my riding, are just a few of the organizations that work with the public to raise awareness about the importance of protecting our waters, lakes, rivers and oceans. They run water-based activities to ensure that our economy is based on more than just the fossil fuel industry.

A number of environmental organizations are also raising public awareness so that we can better protect our waters. These include SCABRIC, Ambioterra, Nostra-Terra, Crivert, the Comité ZIP du Haut-Saint-Laurent, the Comité de l'environnement — Ste-Martine, the Comité consultatif en développement durable et en environnement de la Ville de Salaberry-de-Valleyfield and the Comité Environnement de la MRC de Beauharnois—Salaberry, just to name a few. All of these local organizations are very aware of the fact that we need to protect our waters.

The motion moved to eliminate the use of microbeads is one of the measures put forward by the NDP to protect our waters. All of these sources of pollution show that things are not looking good for our waterways. As I was saying, in my riding, the Lac Saint-François National Wildlife Area has been fighting for years to preserve plants and wildlife that are unique to the region. The wildlife area is home to approximately 20 rare or threatened species, including the yellow flag; the osprey, which is a bird of prey; and the snapping turtle, a wonderful species of turtle.

What has the Conservative government done to protect our wildlife areas? It cut the budget of the Lac Saint-François National Wildlife Area, threatening its very survival. It also amended the legislation protecting our lakes and rivers with Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, mammoth bills that were introduced in 2012 and gutted protections for our waterways.

Châteauguay River protection groups strongly condemned the Conservatives' direct attacks on our environment. In addition to all of these efforts, many members banded together to introduce bills to protect the environment and our waterways.

I hope that all members of the House will vote in favour of this motion to ensure that we can make the consumer products that enter our homes safe and leave a healthy planet to future generations by developing a sustainable economy.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to speak to the latest Conservative omnibus bill. This bill is a product of a tired, old Conservative government that has lost touch with the challenges and opportunities of Canadians.

Bill C-43 is overflowing with changes that have no place in a budget bill, such as the petty change the Conservatives want to make to deny refugee claimants access to social assistance.

The Conservatives are actually using Bill C-43 in an effort to deny income support to refugee claimants, right after their attempt to limit refugee claimants' access to health care was struck down by the Federal Court. The court called that Conservative policy “cruel and unusual treatment” that “outrages (Canadians') standards of decency.”

A recent editorial in The Globe and Mail called this bill “an abuse of process and shown contempt for Parliament by subverting its role”. The Globe is right. It is anti-democratic for the Conservatives to once again use a massive omnibus budget bill to limit debate and ram through so many unrelated measures in Parliament.

In the last few years, the Conservatives have concocted and implemented a process that prevents MPs from all parties from doing their jobs in properly scrutinizing legislation. This is leading to a lot of sloppy mistakes. The Conservatives' general disdain for Canada's democratic institutions and their outright contempt for Parliament have led to countless errors being cemented into Canadian law.

This bill would try to fix a number of previous Conservative mistakes. I would like to give members a few examples of areas where the Conservatives are trying to use this omnibus bill to fix errors in previous bills.

First, the Conservatives forgot to include a tax credit in the last omnibus budget bill, Bill C-31, for interest paid on Canada apprentice loans. The Conservatives try to fix that in clause 35 of Bill C-43.

The second is that the government forgot to ensure that PRPPs are subject to similar GST treatment as RRSPs. The fix for that is found in part 2 of Bill C-43.

Third, they forgot to include a refund in Bill C-31 for duties paid on destroyed tobacco products. That correction is in Bill C-43, part 3.

Fourth, they forgot to change a legal heading when the Conservatives used Bill C-19 to transfer spending powers from the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. The Conservatives gave all of the powers in that section of the law to the immigration minister, but still named the section “Minister of Foreign Affairs”.

Fifth, they forgot in Bill C-38 to allow the Minister of Industry to publicly disclose certain information regarding the review process.

Sixth, they forgot in Bill C-31 to include foreign money services businesses as foreign entities under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act.

Seventh, they ignored expert advice and capped the size of the Social Security Tribunal in Bill C-38, leading to massive backlogs in the system.

Eighth, they failed to realize in Bill C-4 that the amalgamation of the Blue Water Bridge Authority might not go as planned.

Ninth, they created confusion in Bill C-4 with various amendments related to public service labour, including a reference to the wrong clause number.

Tenth, they forgot in Bill C-45 to coordinate between RCMP pension rule changes in Bill C-42 and rule changes that raised the age for public service pensions in Bill C-45.

There are 10 examples of the the mistakes the Conservatives made in the previous bill that they are trying to fix in this omnibus bill.

The fact is that the Conservatives' game plan of limiting debate and ramming these bills through Parliaments is responsible for creating these mistakes. Parliament is denied its legitimate role to identify these flaws in the process of real parliamentary debate at committee and in the House and fixing them.

The reason these mistakes are made in the first place is because of the deeply flawed process surrounding omnibus legislation.

I would like to talk a bit today about tax policy, GST, EI, and the income-splitting proposal that the Conservatives had in their last platform.

Bill C-43 actually adds GST to some goods and services that are used by or provided by non-profit organizations operating health care facilities. When we asked officials for an example of what kinds of service might get caught up in this GST hike, the example they provided was of a health care facility that also runs a residential apartment building, such as an old age home. Adding GST to services purchased by or provided by old age homes means one of two things: either it will cut into the bottom line of the health care facility, or the old age home will have no choice but to pass the tax hike on to the people they serve. In the case of an old age home, it means that the government is getting ready to hike the GST and punish Canadian seniors, who are already struggling to get by on a fixed income.

In terms of employment insurance, Bill C-43 also gets it wrong. Bill C-43 offers a small EI tax cut to employers, but only if they agree to stay small. Instead of creating real jobs and growth, Bill C-43 would actually encourage businesses to stay small and would punish them if they grow and become more successful. Due to a design flaw in Bill C-43, the so-called small business job credit creates an incentive for some businesses to fire workers. That is why economist Jack Mintz has called it “a disincentive to growth” and why economist Mike Moffatt said “...the proposed ‘Small Business Job Credit’ has major structural flaws that, in many cases, give firms an incentive to fire workers and cut salaries.”

Even Finance Canada officials last night acknowledged that this tax credit creates a disincentive for some employers to hire.

Last month the PBO looked at this tax credit and found that it will only create 800 jobs over the next two years, at a cost of $550 million. That means it will cost taxpayers almost $700,000 per job.

In response to the need to encourage businesses to hire and to reduce EI premiums for businesses that do that or reward businesses that hire, the Liberals have proposed an EI holiday for new hires. This plan would only reward businesses that actually create jobs. The Liberal plan has been endorsed by Canadian job creators, including the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, which has said that the Liberal plan for an EI exemption for new hires “would create jobs”. The Restaurants Canada organization, representing restaurants across the country, said “This...proposal for an EI exemption for new hires would help restaurants create jobs.” The CFIB said it loves the Liberal plan to exempt small business from EI premiums for new hires, which has lots of job potential.

The same PBO report that looked at the Conservatives' tax credit and identified the flawed program that would cost $700,000 per job also identified that the Conservatives are collecting billions of dollars in excess of taxes in EI over the next two years and that the Conservatives actually have the capacity to cut EI premiums significantly.

The PBO estimates that artificially high EI rates under the Conservatives will cost the Canadian economy 10,000 jobs over the next two years. That is 10,000 more Canadians who will be out of work over the next two years because the Conservatives are using artificially high EI premiums to pad the books to fund pre-election spending. The Conservatives are ignoring the evidence and putting Conservative politics ahead of the Canadian economy and ahead of the interests of Canadian workers and employers.

Speaking of ignoring the evidence, the Conservatives appear ready to go ahead with their flawed income-splitting scheme that was introduced in their last platform. The idea that the Conservatives were putting forth in their last platform has been panned by everyone from the C.D. Howe Institute and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation to the Mowat Centre and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. It was even panned by the late Jim Flaherty himself.

It is being panned because, as articulated in their platform, fewer than 15% of Canadian households would benefit, most of them high-income households, at a cost of $3 billion per year to the federal treasury and another $2 billion per year to provincial governments. Provincial governments, as we know, are facing deficits and huge fiscal challenges.

Under the Conservatives' scheme, the Prime Minister, earning $320,000 a year and with a stay-at-home spouse, would save about $6,500 per year. Meanwhile, a Canadian earning the average industrial wage and with a stay-at-home spouse would save less than $10 per week, and most households would get no benefit whatsoever.

We have a different approach. The Liberal approach is that we need to build a plan for 2015 that would be focused on creating jobs and growth to strengthen the Canadian middle class. The status quo is not working. The current federal government is so preoccupied with day-to-day politics that it has lost track of and is out of touch with the challenges and opportunities facing Canadian families. Those are challenges such as aging demographics and a slow-growth economy, which some refer to as secular stagnation. Baby boomers are rapidly approaching retirement age, and as they exit the workforce, they will leave a shrinking tax base and labour shortages in their wake. They will also place a greater strain on health care systems as they age. We will end up with more Canadians using the social safety net and fewer Canadians paying into it. These demographic pressures are leading economists to predict that slow economic growth could become the new normal.

The Canadian economy, frankly, is already sputtering under the Conservatives. Job growth over the last two years has been extremely weak, consumer debt is high, infrastructure is in disrepair, and housing prices in our cities are inflated. Last year the Canadian economy created a paltry 5,300 net new full-time jobs across the country. The percentage of Canadians working today is still two full points lower than before the downturn. There are 200,000 more jobless Canadians today than before the downturn, and the number of Canadians who are considered long-term unemployed is twice that of 2008. More than 150,000 Canadians are unemployed and have been searching for work for a year or longer. As we all know, the longer they are out of the workforce, the harder it is for them to get back in.

On the other end of the spectrum, we have young Canadians who simply cannot get their foot in the door of the Canadian labour market. Recent grads are facing huge challenges. There are 200,000 fewer jobs for young Canadians today than before the downturn, before 2008. Persistently high youth unemployment and under-employment is robbing a generation of people of opportunities they need to succeed. TD economist Craig Alexander and CIBC economist Benjamin Tal describe a scenario of a lost generation of Canadian youth and a lost generation of potential for all Canadians.

This is despite the fact that this generation is the most technologically adept, most educated generation in our nation's history, and therein lies the challenge we face. There is a gap between the education they have and the job market. We have people without jobs and jobs without people.

Too many Canadians in their twenties are left saddled with big student loans and are unable to make ends meet. All too often, it is their middle-class parents and grandparents who are footing the bill. Among the hardest hit are Canadians who are actually squeezed between helping their adult children pay the bills and taking care of their aging parents at the same time, the sandwich generation. In many cases these parents in their forties, fifties, and sixties are taking on additional debt or dipping into their retirement savings. In fact, this is one of the things that is driving record levels of personal debt, which is about $1.65 for every dollar of annual income. According to the Canadian Financial Monitor, Canadians who are 55 years of age or older are two and a half times more likely to refinance their mortgage if they have children than if they do not have children. Their average household debt is twice that of their childless peers.

Meanwhile, many younger families do not actually have a mortgage to refinance. Instead, they are being priced out of the housing market altogether.

On this front, the Conservative government must share at least part of the blame for the high housing prices in Canada and commensurate personal debt. It was the Conservative government, in budget 2006, that brought in 40-year mortgages with no down payment. It introduced them for the first time in Canada. It had an effect, because in the first half of 2008, more than half of all new mortgages in Canada were 40-year mortgages, and 10% of those had zero down payment.

The Conservatives shifted Canada's borrowing culture and lending culture, and that shift has helped fuel record levels of housing prices commensurate with that household debt. They have since reversed course and returned to the norm that was the case under Liberal governments in the past, meaning 25-year mortgages with at least 5% down. However, it is important to recognize the Conservatives' culpability in bringing 40-year mortgages with no down payments into Canada and helping fuel record levels of personal debt related to skyrocketing housing prices.

From the OECD and the IMF to the Bank of Canada, one thing on which Canadian and international economists agree is that elevated housing prices and household debt pose a big domestic threat to our economy. These elevated housing prices have helped widen the generational divide between those on the one hand who have watched the value of their house appreciate and in some cases have tapped into that equity to help fund consumption, and those on the other hand who cannot afford to even enter the housing market.

We are seeing greater income inequality in Canada, and fewer Canadians now think of themselves as being middle class. In fact, the number of Canadians who self-identify as middle class has dropped from 64% in 2009 to 47% in 2014. Even more troubling is that for the first time in recent history, more Canadians now believe that the next generation, their children and grandchildren, will be worse off, not better off, than they are today. That is the first time this has happened in Canada.

What we need is a federal government that will rise to meet these big challenges facing our country: aging demographics, slow growth, soft job market, and high levels of youth unemployment and underemployment. These are all challenges, but they also represent opportunities. I will give one specific challenge to our country that is a big social and economic challenge but that also represents an opportunity if we can get it right.

Over the next 10 years, there will be about 400,000 young aboriginal and first nation Canadians who will be of workforce age. If they have the skills they need for the jobs of today, that would be really good for our economy. If they do not, it represents a demographic, economic, and social time bomb for our country.

The reality is that we have failed collectively as governments at all levels to address this challenge. If we take it seriously, young aboriginal workers can be part of a Canadian growth and economic success story. We have to get it right. We have to take these issues seriously.

Liberals believe that sustainable growth and a focus on creating jobs, growth, and opportunities is the best way to benefit Canadian middle-class families and to restore hope to them. We believe we need to invest in infrastructure, training, innovation, and trade, and we believe that we need to keep our competitive tax rates.

Bill C-43 does nothing to grow the Canadian economy, and it ignores the very real challenges of the middle class and of young Canadians.

In a very short period of time, potentially within days, we will be seeing a fall economic statement. We hope the government chooses to invest in the future by investing in infrastructure, in training, and in young Canadians. We need the government to do so, and if this government does not, a future Liberal government will.

Georgian Bay Channel to Lock 45 – Port Severn

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to the motion at hand, sponsored by the member for Simcoe North. I want to thank him for bringing it forward, as well as the interventions already by the member for Beaches—East York and Ottawa South in the debate today. I hope to explain a bit about Transport Canada's role under the motion in front of us today.

I am pleased to speak about Transport Canada's mandate under the Navigation Protection Act in relation to proposed dredging projects, such as deepening and straightening the navigation channel between Georgian Bay and the westerly limit of the Trent-Severn Waterway at Port Severn.

The high current in the channel makes it a difficult and challenging channel to navigate. The government recognizes the benefits of improving access within this waterway and supports, in principle, the initiative to widen and straighten the navigation channel to improve navigation through this busy recreational waterway.

However, it is important to note that Transport Canada does not dredge for the purposes of enhancing recreational boating. Rather, when a proponent brings forward a submission for a proposed dredging project, Transport Canada undertakes a regulatory review of the navigation safety of the project under the Navigation Protection Act, formally known as the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

As members are aware, the Navigable Waters Protection Act was amended in December 2012 as part of budget Bill C-45 in order to modernize the regulatory process that oversees our navigable waters.

The NWPA was one of Canada's oldest pieces of legislation, dating from a time when our waterways were Canada's primary transportation routes. A key purpose of the act was the protection of navigation in the context of allowing the construction and placement of works in, on, over, under, through, or across navigable waters in Canada.

A significant change to the act was the change in name to the Navigation Protection Act, correctly aligning the name of the act with its navigation safety mandate. Another key change was the addition of a schedule of specific navigable waters, focusing efforts on the regulation of those works that had the biggest impact on navigation in Canada. The schedule is focused on those waters that support busy commercial or recreation-related navigation, that are accessible by ports and marinas, and that are often in close proximity to heavily populated areas.

Nautical charts compiled by the Canadian Hydrographic Service, reliance on departmental historic data, and information acquired through Statistics Canada related to freight movement on Canadian waterways were used to compile the list.

Canadians have a public right of navigation; that is, the right to free and unobstructed passage over navigable waters. The new Navigation Protection Act operates as a statutory exception to the common law, allowing interferences with the public right of navigation.

In this day and age, where economic stimulus remains a top priority for Canada, I believe the amendments to the act have seized the opportunity to create a modern, robust, and flexible legislative regime that can effectively respond to current and future needs of Canadians. Ultimately, these amendments will facilitate better economic growth.

For years provincial, territorial, and municipal governments expressed a desire for the Government of Canada to overhaul the legislation and reduce the red tape. The amendments to the act respond to this demand, making it easier for communities to build important infrastructure like roads, bridges, and wharves, which create jobs and economic development.

For the purposes of our discussion today, the navigation channel that provides access between Georgian Bay and the westerly limit of the Trent-Severn Waterway at Port Severn is included in the schedule of waters.

The Trent-Severn Waterway is an important Canadian navigation and environmental resource, dating back to the 19th century transportation systems in Ontario, and continues to contribute to Canadian society today as part of our proud heritage. Thousands of boaters use the Trent-Severn each year, millions visit and enjoy the lock stations and other public sites along the canals, many local community businesses provide services to both residents and tourists, and, in addition, communities have been built around the lifestyles associated with this waterway.

In summary, this waterway continues to be a substantial boost to the economy of the region.

As I mentioned earlier, the navigation channel that provides access between Georgian Bay and the westerly limit of the Trent-Severn Waterway is on the schedule. This means that any proposed work on this navigable water may require a review and authorization by Transport Canada's officials under the Navigation Protection Act.

Transport Canada's role in any proposed dredging project on any navigable waterway listed on the schedule is to continue to support a safe and efficient transportation system through the regulatory review process, thereby minimizing risks to navigation.

It should be noted that some works, including dredging, may fall under the category of designated or minor works. Works in this category do not require review and authorization by Transport Canada's officials if the works meet the criteria set out in the minor works order.

Should a dredging project not meet the minor works criteria, Transport Canada's officials would work closely with their clients, usually the owners of the works, and with federal and provincial partners throughout the process of assessing the potential impacts of proposed works. They are directly involved in activities and operations that can impact navigation, and they serve clients in Canada's industrial sectors, all levels of government, stakeholders in the tourism and recreation sector, private property owners, and the general public.

To reiterate, a primary purpose of the Navigation Protection Act is to regulate works that risk interfering with navigation in waters listed in the schedule to the act. A proponent's submission requirements are determined by Transport Canada's officials and include important and relevant project information, such as final design and construction details. This detailed information is required for Transport Canada's officials to identify likely interferences with shipping and boating activities.

In the case of a proposed project for dredging within the Trent-Severn Waterway, the proponent would have to comply with the process for a regulatory submission. It is the owner's responsibility to submit a notice and receive confirmation from Transport Canada's officials prior to any construction. Specifically for this case, the proponent would be responsible for contacting the Transport Canada navigation protection program for the Ontario region. Transport Canada regional officials will provide the proponent with the relevant submission requirements.

In closing, Transport Canada's responsibility regarding this initiative is to review any proposed works in scheduled navigable waters to ensure they are constructed in a manner that considers the impacts to navigation and supports a safe and efficient transportation system. Transport Canada works closely with clients to assist them with a smooth and transparent regulatory review and authorization process.

Motions in Amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, I always take great pleasure in being able to rise and speak in Canada's Parliament, in our House of Commons.

It is an incredible privilege and honour, certainly to do so on behalf of the people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, in the northwest of British Columbia. This is a region of the country that is incredibly proud, with its diverse and important history. Also, it has struggled, particularly with regard to creating jobs, and it has watched many of the major sectors suffer.

One of the great abuses that has been heaped on that challenge by successive governments is the inattentiveness to what actual Canadians are concerned about, the proper way to create jobs and wealth in this country.

We have struggled, particularly when we watch governments that grow so arrogant over time that they choose a form of governing that is disrespectful and disregarding of some of our most primary and fundamental democratic instincts.

I have some quotations, because it is not just me saying this about the process we are engaged in here today on this particular bill. Let me quote from somebody sitting in cabinet right now.

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. This is a very important public policy question that is very complex and we have the arrogance of the government in invoking closure again. When we look at the Liberal Party on arrogance it is like looking at the Grand Canyon. It is this big fact of nature that we cannot help but stare at.

That is what the Minister of Industry said when the previous Liberal government used an omnibus bill, this technique of ramming all sorts of pieces of legislation into one. That omnibus bill was one-third the size of the one the Conservatives have just introduced. This must be three times the size of the Grand Canyon with respect to arrogance.

This happens to governments, especially ones that age badly over time, as the government has done. We can look at the list of omnibus legislation over the last number of years. Bill C-13 was 644 pages; Bill C-38, which was often called the pipelines enabling act, gutting environmental and safeguards we have within the Fisheries Act, was 425 pages; Bill C-45, further gutting protections for Canadians, was 400 pages. There was Bill C-4, Bill C-60, and now this one, Bill C-31, at almost 300 pages affecting 60 pieces of law.

I have a stack of quotes from Conservatives, from the Prime Minister to many ministers in his cabinet, decrying the abuse of Parliament that had been done under Liberal majority governments. It seems that they paid too close attention, but took all of the wrong lessons from the previous government. In fact, they took that and somehow tried to normalize it.

We do not think it is normal. We do not think it is proper and good for a government to try to ram these pieces of legislation through, invoking what is called time allocation or closure, shutting down the debate at every stage. In this case, the government shut it down after 20 minutes of debate. It brought in time allocation and said, “That is enough of this whole debate thing, this whole democracy thing. Let us allocate the time and shut down opportunities”.

I remember the Prime Minister, when he was in opposition, decrying the fact that he might only get 10 minutes and that many members of Parliament would not get any time at all. That is exactly what the same Prime Minister is now doing.

That is on the process. It is an absolute farce when the government pretends that any sort of proper oversight was given to this bill. I have sat on the committee, and my Conservative colleagues know full well that as the shutting down of witnesses and debate at committee happens, the government starts racing through pages and pages of legislation. In fact, it had to amend its own bill before it even left the committee stage, because it had made so many fundamental errors. It was going to deprive seniors of some of their pensions, inadvertently.

Constitutional experts that the Conservatives say are the best, like Mr. Hogg, who the Conservatives rely on for advice, have come forward and said there are whole sections of this bill that will not only be challenged in our courts for charter infringement, but those challenges will succeed.

The government is going to introduce legislation that it knows full well is likely to fail a charter challenge, which is going to cost Canadians millions through our tax dollars for all the lawyers that it takes to go through all the series of courts up to the Supreme Court, but it will also cause all the pain and aggravation for those who suffer under a law that is not constitutional in the first place.

This is a movie we have seen before from the government. Time and time again, when we get references for bills that are unconstitutional from all the advice we can gather, the government chooses playing politics over good policy and brings them in anyway.

Let us look at aspects of this 360-page monster.

Let me start with something that is not in here, which the small businesses in Canada were calling for. It was a proposal first put forward by New Democrats in the last election: a small-business hiring tax credit.

Here is the fundamental idea in this very good idea. This was a small-business initiative that Jack Layton and the NDP proposed that said, “Let us help out small businesses in hiring those people, but in giving that tax credit we want to connect it to an actual job being created”. I know this is radical economics over here, where we suggest that if we give a tax credit to the private sector from the public, there should be something in return, like a job created.

The tax credits and the tax breaks that the Conservatives prefer and, to be fair, so did the Liberals before them, in the order of tens of billions of dollars, had no strings attached. I remember Mr. Flaherty, our dear friend, criticizing the private sector for sitting on half a trillion dollars of what is called “dead money”. This is money that had been accumulating in the private sector in the private enterprises in Canada that they were not reinvesting. It was just a hope from the Conservatives: here are the tax breaks to the banks and the oil sector; here is a hope that they will actually do something with the money rather than sit on it or just do stock dividends. They hope that they are going to reinvest it back into research and development, reinvest it back into hiring more Canadians and expanding their business, but there are no strings attached to that deal. The Conservatives were very happy to let that go.

Also, many of those tax breaks were done when the government was running a deficit, so it was borrowed money. As all Canadians know, because they have borrowed money at some point, borrowed money always costs more. It was borrowed money that was then sent to the private sector in Canada with no strings attached.

This was one good idea that over half a million Canadian small business owners applied for and used, this small-business hiring tax credit. We would think that, somewhere in the 360 pages, the Conservatives would have found a way to include that one measure in this budget implementation act. It is one measure that worked, that was being applied for, that Canadian business owners enjoyed, and that had helped create more than half a million jobs in small and medium-sized businesses. However, it is not here.

What is in the bill is interesting. There is the Hazardous Products Act. There are all sorts of changes to how we would handle hazardous products. There are changes to the Supreme Court. There are changes to our privacy rights in this bill.

Extension of Sitting Hours

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

Mr. Speaker, I saw the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley rising. I am sure he would have pointed out that, according to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, in 2013, of the jobs the current government managed to cobble together, 95% were actually part-time, and we have 300,000 more unemployed than we did the year before. Therefore, the Conservative government, I guess in keeping with not showing up to evening sessions, is a part-time government. The Conservatives are only able to stimulate the economy with part-time jobs, and that is not even going. I know my colleague for Skeena—Bulkley Valley would also mention the fact that tens of thousands of jobs were lost last month.

We are talking about a government that right now does not seem to be doing much right.

It is rather sad that the government is again moving this motion that it is imposing with its majority. The NDP is always willing to work evenings. There is no doubt about that and we have proven it many times. Every June since 2011, NDP members were always in the House ready to debate bills and provide advice. The problem is that this government does not listen and is not prepared to listen to good advice. I will come back to that in a moment.

We are very familiar with the results. We know that bill after bill has been rejected by the court. The government is then often required to make amendments to the botched parts of the previous bill. The government seems to want to bungle everything, not just services to Canadians, but also the legislative process that leads to the introduction of appropriate bills and proposed amendments to improve bills in order to help Canadians. This process does not seem all that complicated, but it is unfortunately often botched by this government.

I am referring to the Conservatives' use of closure and time allocation motions, which is on par with their use by the Liberals when they were in power. It is appalling that this government systematically wants to shut down debate and deprive members of their right to speak. Each time, 280 members, on average, are deprived of their right to speak. The Conservatives vote for these closure motions. That is ridiculous.

In ridings where a Conservative member was elected—I am not so sure they will be re-elected the next time—that member takes away his own opportunity to speak on behalf of his constituents. The Conservatives say they want to shut down debate and therefore they do not want their constituents in Calgary, Red Deer, Lévis or any other riding to be represented in the House of Commons. They want to shut down debate. Thus, the vast majority of Conservative members seldom talk about the needs of the people in their riding or bills introduced in Parliament.

The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has just stood up and said that the Conservatives are going to work harder, but that also happened last year. My colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley knows what I am talking about. Last year, the Conservatives were not in the House to speak. One evening, there was six hours of debate and only a single Conservative member was in the House to speak. Only one Conservative member spoke in six hours. The government moves time allocation and closure motions, and the Conservative members remain silent instead of speaking.

Members of the NDP, on the other hand, are always in attendance when the sitting hours of the House are extended. We are always there to fight, to improve bills and to solicit comments about bills. Meanwhile, the Conservatives are nowhere to be found. They do not come to the House, or perhaps one of them will show up over the course of the evening. As we said earlier, during the debate on S-12, no Conservative members came to speak about the bill. Not one, and we were there for six hours. What were they doing?

I do not know. It is not as though they were out consulting their constituents. The Conservatives are not here. They are not speaking.

I am going to come back to this momentarily, but the result is that we end up with botched legislation because the government does not listen and the Conservative members do not even speak on behalf of their constituents. Honestly.

We receive a generous salary from our constituents, the taxpayers. We are here to work to help our ridings move forward. I represent the riding of Burnaby—New Westminster. It is my duty to be in the House to stand up for the interests of the people of Burnaby—New Westminster.

If members decide to stop speaking, to systematically go along with the government's time allocation and closure motions and therefore deprive their ridings of the right to speak and if, on top of that, members do not even show up for the evening sessions in the House of Commons to contribute to the debate and the legislative process, then this approach becomes a complete sham.

I am fairly certain—and I would take a bet with any Conservative member—that this year, we will have the same problem as we did last year and the year before: 90% to 95% of the time, the NDP, or sometimes other opposition members, will be speaking and the Conservatives will not even be here.

The reasoning behind this motion does not make sense. The Conservatives are not the ones who will be here working. The Conservatives will not be here representing their constituents. The Conservatives will not be here giving passionate speeches about their ridings. They will not be here.

The proof, as we will soon see, is the way this motion is structured. The way the government decided to structure the motion is evidence of how much it will once again diminish the democratic rights all Canadians value so strongly. Canadians across the country want us to be in the House. They want us to represent them, regardless of where we are from.

For example, my colleague from Sherbrooke is an extraordinary young man, and he does a good job representing his riding. He is always in the House and speaks often. He is here; he represents his riding. He understands how important it is to represent Sherbrooke in the House of Commons. The same goes for my colleague from Hochelaga. Her riding is not the wealthiest riding in Canada. The average family income in her riding is below the average. She is always here representing the people of Hochelaga and talking on their behalf. She gives speeches on the importance of affordable housing. That is because she understands her role as member of Parliament.

Members on the Conservative side, on the other hand, refuse to speak at second reading or at report stage because there is a time allocation motion, and they refuse to show up on evenings when we have extended debates. How can the government expand the scope of its activities when it does not listen and when government members refuse to speak on behalf of their constituents? They refuse to defend government bills, they refuse to take action, they refuse to present amendments and they refuse to offer anything at all when it comes to legislation.

In such circumstances, voting Conservative does not mean a great deal. When people voted for the Conservatives, they voted for members who are controlled by the Prime Minister's Office, not members who rise in the House, defend their constituents' rights and speak on their behalf.

I want to speak to the motion now because I know that many of my colleagues are reading it. We want this to be a useful study of an important motion. For those who are watching, I will go step by step.

To begin, the majority government, as usual, wants to force a decision on the House. Unfortunately, debate and democracy are foreign concepts for the Conservatives.

They are proposing that commencing upon the adoption of this order and concluding on Friday, June 20, 2014, on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be midnight, except that it shall be 10 p.m. on a day when a debate, pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1, is to take place.

As I said, we do not object to working until midnight. However, what actually happens is that the members opposite rarely show up to speak in the House. Opposition members are the ones who really contribute to the debates, and that is a major problem. If the government listened to us, it would not be problem, but that is not the case.

This has caused many problems with bills in the past. More than once we had to make amendments to botched bills with subsequent legislation, or, again, the Supreme Court clearly indicated that the bills were not in order.

Today, the Conservatives are proposing that we adjourn at midnight, or 10 p.m. if a debate pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1 is to take place. That refers to emergency debates.

My colleagues in the House, including the hon. member for Laval—who works very hard for the people in his riding—and the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, are always listening to their constituents and are always ready to raise questions that often result in an emergency debate.

A few weeks ago, in fact, an emergency debate was held in accordance with Standing Orders 52 and 53.1. That debate on the kidnapping of young Nigerian schoolgirls by the terrorist group Boko Haram was proposed by the member for Ottawa Centre. Many people from across the country came here to attend the debate, and people were still talking about it when I returned to my riding, Burnaby—New Westminster, last week.

Now the government wants to prevent us from holding emergency debates before 10 p.m. If the Chair decides that there is to be an emergency debate, that debate cannot begin before 10 p.m. For working people in eastern Canada, who have families and work hard, that is late. They will be denied their right to tune in.

It will not be so bad in my riding because of the three-hour time difference. For example, 10 p.m. here is 7 p.m. back home. That is a reasonable time. However, for the vast majority of Canadians, this government motion deprives them of their right to tune in to the emergency debates that will take place in the coming weeks.

Second, when we look at the second clause of this motion, which deals with recorded divisions, we see that what the Conservatives would now do is put in place a voting system that would have votes occur at the conclusion of oral questions, in the middle of the afternoon. This proposal reveals the whole intent of the government.

The Conservatives say that they want to work harder. We have already ripped up that argument by showing that when they said they wanted to work harder that last year, over 90% of the time it was not Conservatives but New Democrats doing the work. Only one Conservative member would show up every night to speak in the House of Commons, so this idea that somehow the government wants to work harder is simply not true.

Paragraph (b) deals with recorded divisions demanded in respect of any debatable motion before 2 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday. In this case the vote would stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions on that day, while if a division is demanded after 2 p.m., it would stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions on the next sitting day.

What the Conservatives would do is basically do away with those evening votes. Not only do they not show up to speak, but they also do not even want to show up to vote. This could be perhaps the laziest motion ever put forward in the House of Commons by the government. It is far from wanting to work harder, as we have shown quite clearly when 90% to 95% of the time it is the New Democrats carrying the heavy load.

We are fine with carrying the heavy load. We come from humble roots and we are hard workers. Everybody acknowledges that, and that is why 90% to 95% of the time it is we who do the hard work in the House.

However, now the Conservatives want to even do away with evening votes. They are saying, “No, that is too hard. It is too hard voting at 6:00 or 7:00 at night. We do not want to show up to speak”.

This is a licence for laziness. That is what the government has brought forward. The Conservatives want to make sure that motions are voted on around question period time so that folks can show up around question period and then do whatever it is that Conservative MPs do in the evening. I have no idea of that.

I should also point out that, in this motion, the same goes for private members' business. Where this motion mentions Wednesdays governed by this order, it says that recorded divisions will be deferred until the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday. As for other private members' business, the motion says that this too will be deferred until the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday. That is the same thing.

This is really a licence for laziness. As we have shown, 90% to 95% of the time, the Conservatives are not the ones showing up to speak in the House. They do not want to vote in the evening, not even on private members' business. They want to curtail all of these activities and make sure that no votes happen in the evening.

What difference will that make? The NDP will still be here working. We work hard. We have a reputation for working hard. We come from humble roots and we represent our ridings well. I know that the members here this afternoon are very hard-working, and we will continue to work hard. Votes, including votes on private members' business, will now be held in the afternoon. That means the Conservative members will have their evenings free.

That is really the problem. As we move through this motion, we see time and time again that this is like a giant recess for the Conservatives. They have structured this so that they do not have to have votes in the evening anymore. They do not show up to speak in the evening 90% of the time, depending on the evening. It is New Democrats who actually put in the representation of their ridings. What we are seeing again is the Conservatives, through this motion, giving themselves an evening off.

The real clue to what the Conservatives are doing, this licence for laziness, is that they will not show up to speak or to vote, but they are telling the NDP that we can do our stuff and speak on behalf of our constituents. They have also proved that they are not willing to listen to the good advice we offer them, which is why they got into so much trouble having to amend legislation they brought forward previously and having pieces of legislation rejected by the Supreme Court. If they had listened to us and to Canadians, they would not be in so much trouble.

The key to this is paragraph (h): “No dilatory motion may be proposed, except by a Minister of the Crown after 6:30 p.m.” The essence of the motion is that Conservatives will not show up to speak in the House of Commons. They will not show up to participate, because they do not do that; they let harder-working members do that. They will also not show up to vote in the evening. They will not show up to vote on private members' legislation, and they will not show up to vote on public legislation. That is why they want the votes after question period, when it is convenient.

That means that the Conservatives are shutting down the rules of the House so that only they can use them. It is incredible. If we had not been through Bill C-23, in which they were trying to cook the next election campaign, it would be unbelievable that after all the decades, a century and a half and more of Canadian parliamentary democracy, a government would say that the rules will exist, but the government members will be the only ones who can use them. Only Conservatives can use these rules. Only a minister of the crown can use these rules.

We will have this period. I know it, because we went through it. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley knows it full well, because I think he probably spent more time in this House than any other member. Night after night, there will be no Conservatives here wanting to speak, or maybe one member of Parliament from the Conservative Party will want to speak. However, the Conservatives will not show up to vote, because they are having all the votes deferred to question period, when it is convenient for them, and they are now saying that all the rules of the House apply only to them. Only they can use them. They are basically putting handcuffs on every single member of the opposition. They are saying that only a Conservative can use the rules that normally function that make this democratic place a democracy. Only the Conservatives can use them. It is unbelievable.

If we had not been through the unfair elections act, where the Conservatives were trying to subvert the next election campaign, we would actually think this could not be Canada. These are not Canadian values. That is what they are doing. They are putting in, and writing it out so that any Canadian can see, “No dilatory motion may be proposed, except by a Minister of the Crown after 6:30 p.m.”

This is not an approach to try to work harder. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons was trying to slide that by us a little while ago, and we simply do not believe it. The evidence simply shows that this is not the case. Conservatives will not be showing up to speak in the House. They did not last year. They did not the year before, and 90% to 95% of the time they let the heavy lifting be carried by New Democrats. We are strong, we are tough, and we do not mind doing it. We will do an even better job in 2015 once we are the government. That is when we will really see changes, when the heavy lifting actually benefits people directly through good governance.

I can tell members something else we will not be doing. It is what I mentioned half an hour ago.

I am enjoying this. I am not sure when I am going to sit down, actually. I think my colleagues from the NDP are appreciating it too.

I just want to mention what happens when due diligence is not done. Conservative members should know this, but they are muzzled. They vote for time allocation and muzzle themselves, so they do not actually speak on legislation in the House. There are 280 MPs, on average, who have their right to speak on legislation ripped away every single time, the dozens and dozens of times, the government has used closure techniques. Sometimes it calls it time allocation, but it amounts to the same thing; it is closure. Every time the government does it, 280 MPs, on average, are denied their right to speak. They do not show up to the evening session to speak. One does, and that is normally it. Then 90% to 95% of the heavy lifting is done by the NDP.

What is the result of this? I will give three examples. I could give tons of examples. I could probably speak for 14 hours on bad, botched Conservative legislation. I could do that, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure you and the public would find it interesting, but eventually we are going to have to go to question period. I am going to mention only three examples.

The Conservatives rammed Bill C-38 through the House without due care and attention and without showing up for evening sessions. Bill C-38 was one of the omnibus bills. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley raised major concerns about it at the time. The Conservatives botched the bill. They botched it so badly that the next bill they introduced had to fix the mistakes they made in the first bill. They rammed Bill C-38 through the House with time allocation. It was omnibus legislation, which was quite all right, except it was wrong. It was badly botched in a way only the Conservative government could do it.

It was so badly botched, the government had to introduce another piece of legislation, Bill C-45. Bill C-45 had to fix all the problems in the previous bill. Was that a good use of taxpayers' money? Was it a good, use of this legislative process? The government rammed through Bill C-38 but botched it so badly that it had to bring another piece of legislation in to fix it. That is like bringing one's car in to get fixed and driving off without the wheels. It is incredible. We went through another process, with Bill C-45, to fix what was wrong with Bill C-38.

That is just a snapshot of how the government handles legislation. It is like the guy who has a hammer and thinks everything is a nail. Conservatives think everything is pavement and they can steamroll over all of it, except that when legislation is badly botched, there are consequences.

That brings me to another piece of legislation, Bill C-4. It is the same kind of thing. The Conservatives tried to throw a whole bunch of things in the bill, a laundry list, except that the Supreme Court rejected part of that legislation. As we know, the Leader of the Opposition has been raising this repeatedly in the House.

We have a problem whereby botched legislation leads to more time wasted, because the Conservatives have to introduce other legislation to fix the bad legislation they forced through in the first place without listening to the NDP. If they had listened to the NDP, they would not have had the badly botched legislation in the first place. If they do get it through the House, then, as we saw with Bill C-4, the Supreme Court says, “Sorry, you badly botched this legislation and it is not constitutional”. As a result of that, we have to reject part of this legislation.

This is the real problem. It is not that the government, as it likes to say, does its job and produces a quantity of legislation, so everyone should give it a pat on the back. It is bad legislation in so many cases. It is legislation that has to be fixed. New Democrats always offer the amendments and the fixes. We are always there to try to direct the government. We often feel as if we are trying to direct a puppy, because it seems to get distracted often.

The reality is that the work the government does should be very important. The legislation the government presents in the House should be very important. There should be a proper legislative process. There should be amendments that are considered. There should be a process people can actually respect. That is not what happens under the government.

The government just throws legislation out without due respect for parliamentary traditions. It refuses to listen to the opposition to develop the legislation so that it can actually accomplish what it purports to set out to do when it puts the legislation on the floor of the House. The government will not take amendments, will not listen to debate, actually shuts down the debate, and rams legislation through. This costs Canadians enormously.

Every time the government has to provide new legislation to fix the old legislation, and as has happened a number of times in the past few weeks, every time the Supreme Court says that what the government is doing is simply not constitutional, it costs Canadians.

We have this motion that is a licence for laziness. It dismisses Conservatives from voting in the evening. It dismisses Conservatives from having to participate in debates that are actually quite important, because that is how we get legislation fixed, particularly the shoddy legislation the government tends to present in the House.

Now we have a government that has such profound arrogance that it says, quite clearly, “No dilatory motion may be proposed, except by a Minister of the Crown”, which means that no dilatory motion may be proposed except by a Conservative, except by a minister of the crown, after 6:30 p.m.

What the government is doing, at the height of its arrogance, is saying to Canadians, “Hey, we are just going to run this government, this country, exactly how we want, and we do not care about the consequences”.

We care about the consequences. We care when we see shoddy legislation that has to be corrected, and it takes months of work, because the government did not get it right in the first place. We care when the Supreme Court says that what the government is doing is unconstitutional.

We care when we see, right across this country, growing concern about the government's arrogance and its attacks on a whole host of institutions, not just in the elections act but in the attack on the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and Sheila Fraser. How could anyone attack Sheila Fraser? The Conservatives have been doing just that.

When we see all those attacks, we see a government that has simply done its time. It no longer has any sort of legitimate agenda but just wants to lash out at its perceived enemies and wants to set a perception that is simply not true.

With this motion, this licence for laziness, Conservatives get off scot-free. They do not have to vote in the evening. They do not have to show up in the evening. The government has said it is going to handcuff every single member of the opposition to their desks and not let them use any proper parliamentary procedure after 6:30 p.m. Only the government can.

That arrogance is something Canadians are becoming increasingly aware of. That arrogance is something Canadians are saying they have had enough of. In the most recent poll, the Prime Minister had an approval rating of one-third of Canadians. Two-thirds of Canadians disapprove of the work he is doing.

The leader of the Liberal Party has falling approval levels, but he did better. It was 50/50.

The top approval level in the country is for the Leader of the Opposition. Two-thirds of Canadians see his work in the House of Commons and approve of it. They see him as strong and as defending Canadian democracy.

That is what we are going to continue to do. We are going to ensure that legislation is effective. We are going to continue to speak out and work hard on behalf of our constituents. We are looking forward to that day, October 19, 2015, when we can get rid of the government and start having an NDP government that is going to fully respect our democratic traditions here in the House of Commons and right across the country.

Grouping of Amendments to Bill C-23—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Before we move on to questions and comments, if there is time, I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised earlier today by the hon. House leader of the official opposition regarding the voting pattern for motions in amendment for Bill C-23, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts.

I would like to thank the hon. opposition House leader for raising this matter, as well the government leader in the House for his comments.

The hon. opposition House leader objected to the way in which the Chair proposes to apply the results of votes taken on motions to delete clauses. The hon. member pointed out that members of his party had proposed 110 such motions in relation to this bill and that other members had also submitted some of the same motions, as well as others. He argued that each motion constituted a distinct question and that members should have the fundamental right to pronounce themselves on each question separately. By applying the result of a vote on one motion to a large number of other motions, he feared that the Chair would force members to vote against clauses they in fact support or vote in favour of clauses they oppose.

In response, the government House leader said that the grouping of votes is in keeping with the recent precedent and that it is not unusual for the results of the vote to be applied in this manner.

The Chair takes seriously its responsibility to select and group motions for debate at report stage. It is often challenging to arrive at a grouping and a voting pattern that all members will find satisfactory, and this is particularly true in cases where there are a large number of motions proposed.

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

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

The hon. House leader of the official opposition is asking that each motion be voted on separately. A similar argument was made by his predecessor in 2012 with respect to Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures. In the decision of November 29, 2012, found on page 12,611 of the Debates, I reminded the House that:

This would diverge from our practice where, for voting purposes where appropriate, a long series of motions to delete are grouped for a vote. Since the effect of deleting a clause at report stage is, for all practical purposes, the same as negativing a clause in committee, to change our practice to a one deletion, one vote approach could be seen as a repetition of the clause by clause consideration of the bill in committee, something which the House is specifically enjoined against in the notes to Standing Orders 76(5) and 76.1(5) which state that the report stage is not meant to be a reconsideration of the committee stage.

The Chair acknowledges that each clause in a bill represents a unique question. That said, it is also clear that our rules and practices foresee circumstances in which the Speaker combines several different questions in a single group for debate and where the vote on one question is applied to others. This is done so that the time of the House is used efficiently and so that the House does not repeat at report stage the work done by the committee that considered the bill.

In the case before us, the Chair has grouped all of the motions to delete proposed by a party or by a member into a single vote. I believe this is in keeping with recent precedents where there are large numbers of motions at report stage.

In fact, to do as the opposition House leader has suggested would be a marked departure from our practices, would be contrary to the very clear direction included in the notes to Standing Orders 76(5) and 76.1(5), and is not something the Chair is prepared to entertain since, as all members know, we are not here to repeat committee stage.

Absent any other direction from the House, I intend to follow those precedents and to maintain the voting pattern I proposed to the House when I rendered my decision last week. I thank the hon. member for having raised this important matter.

Grouping of Amendments to Bill C-23

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House today on a point of order arising out of the impending report stage votes on Bill C-23, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments to certain acts.

In particular, I want to address the groupings of motions for debate at this stage. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the NDP has already raised points of order on this topic in the House, for example with respect to the report stage of Bill C-45 in November 2012.

In light of the Chair's decision then to group many amendments together for single votes, I feel obligated to rise today to speak on this subject once again. In part what I want to affirm today is the Chair's role to protect members' rights to exercise their duties as members of Parliament, including the right to vote freely on questions that are put to the House.

I would like to quote House of Commons Procedure and Practice, the second edition, O'Brien and Bosc, which states on page 307 that:

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

On the same page it reads that:

Freedom of speech may be the most important of the privileges accorded to Members of Parliament....

O'Brien and Bosc, a bit later in the same chapter on page 316, note that voting in the House according to a member's conscience is a freedom that all members enjoy in this House, including the Speaker on rare occasions, as you know, Mr. Speaker.

I hope that when I finish speaking, you will agree to let members vote separately on all the motions in amendment at report stage of Bill C-23.

The principle of a free vote is a simple one, Mr. Speaker, one with which everyone in our democracy should be familiar. I am sure that the majority of Canadians who are watching us right now are surprised to see that I must rise today in the House to ask you to ensure that this right is respected when we vote on the motions in amendment at report stage of Bill C-23.

Because this particular bill is of foundational importance to our democracy, this question becomes all the more crucial. Bill C-23 would make significant changes to our electoral laws, and as they currently stand, in many cases these changes damage the letter and spirit of the Elections Act. As well, as we learned after weeks of scrutiny, a majority of Canadians and virtually all electoral experts are opposed to the bill.

With this much on the line, I believe that it is more important than ever to safeguard members' rights to vote separately on all of the motions in amendment that will affect the bill.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 76.1(5) states that:

The Speaker shall have the power to select or combine amendments or clauses to be proposed at the report stage...

The note following the Standing Order adds that:

...the Speaker will not select for debate a motion or series of motions of a repetitive, frivolous or vexatious nature or of a nature that would serve merely to prolong unnecessarily proceedings at the report stage...

It is therefore clear that when you select a motion for debate at report stage, this means that it is not of a repetitive, frivolous or vexatious nature, contrary to what the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons likes to say again and again.

However, nothing in the Standing Orders provides that the Speaker must group the motions at report stage for votes on very different issues. There is nothing about the Chair grouping amendments in an effort to spare the government from lengthy votes.

In the annotated Standing Orders of the House of Commons on page 264, the commentary on Standing Order 76(5) does note that the Speaker has a role in limiting duplication when it states:

When the Speaker selects and groups report stage motions for debate, he or she also decides on how they will be grouped for voting.

A further comment is made that this avoids the House having to vote twice on the same issue. The same explanation is given in House of Commons Procedure and Practice on page 784:

When the Speaker selects and groups motions in amendment, he or she also decides on how they will be grouped for voting....

I underscore that it is to avoid the House having to vote twice on the same issue.

It seems to me that these explanations are very clear. The selected scheme must ensure that the House does not vote twice on the same issue.

However, I would submit that the voting scheme that has been selected for report stage motions on Bill C-23 goes much further than this very clear instruction. While it is critical that the Speaker not allow the House's time to be wasted, the Speaker must also fulfill his duty to ensure that the right of members to free speech is protected and exercised to the fullest possible extent.

Specifically, when it comes to the report stage motions for Bill C-23, NDP MPs put 110 motions on the notice paper to delete the worst clauses of the bill, in our consideration, and to also delete the clauses that the committee did not have a chance to debate before the government's motion cut off committee proceedings during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

Of those 110 motions, the Liberal Party submitted motions to delete 46 of the same clauses of the bill as our MPs. However, with regard to 54 of the clauses that we moved to delete, Liberals did not. I think it is reasonable to assume that the Liberal MPs would want to vote in favour of the motions that they also submitted, but would likely want to vote against the motions that they chose not to submit. It is the groupings for voting that puts them in this dilemma of choosing a single vote for all 110 motions; those that they submitted and those that they may not be in favour of.

The same problem exists for the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. She put 13 motions on notice, which were identical to our motions, but 97 of our motions that are grouped along with them were not submitted by the member. It seems logical to me that she too will be put in conflict by having to choose one vote for both parts of this enormous equation; those that she submitted and those that she did not.

What is essentially happening is that the Chair is taking clear, valid, individual questions, and putting them to the House as double-barrelled questions, or, in some cases, questions with many more barrels than two. Looking online, a quick Google search reminds us of what a double-barrelled question is, why it is a breach of the rules of logic, and what kind of absurd results it can yield.

The opening line of the Wikipedia entry for “double-barreled question”, and we could go to any other dictionary as well, tells us that, “A double-barreled question is an informal fallacy. It is committed when someone asks a question that touches upon more than one issue, yet allows only for one answer”. One asks two separate questions, but only allows for one answer. That sounds a lot like the situation we are facing here.

The next line tells us, “This may result in inaccuracies in the attitudes being measured for the question, as the respondent can answer only one of the two questions, and cannot indicate which one is being answered”. Again, for report stage on Bill C-23, this sounds very familiar.

These are very basic rules of logical reasoning that are being breached, rules that are necessary to avoid inaccuracies.

Mr. Speaker, on December 12, 2012, in your ruling on the point of order regarding the report stage of Bill C-45, you said that your decisions were not based exclusively on written rules, but also on the evolutionary nature of procedure and precedents.

At that point, you cited a ruling by Speaker Milliken, delivered on April 27, 2010:

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

To this, you added:

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe that this matter and your decision on it are of fundamental importance to our democracy and its cornerstone, this House of Commons. I look forward to your ruling.

First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to stand in the House to speak to a bill that is extremely important to the people who sent me to Parliament, first nations and indigenous people in northern Manitoba, and of course, first nations people across our country.

I want to begin by speaking about the reality that first nations youth face in communities in our part of the country. Some weeks ago, I had the opportunity to visit Little Grand Rapids. Little Grand Rapids is a small first nation on the southeast side of Lake Winnipeg. It is isolated. There are no roads that go there; it is in the middle of the forest, or the bush, as we call it. People work hard at what they do, hunting, trapping, fishing, and they hope for the best for the future of their kids, as anybody does.

What I hear from them when I visit from house to house is their concern for their kids, the concern that their kids are not going to have the same opportunities as other kids. It is not because of where Little Grand Rapids is, how far it is from the city or where it is positioned geographically. It is because it is a first nation, and they know their kids face some of the most unequal opportunities in terms of education in this country. Because they are first nations, going to school on reserve, they are guaranteed to be going to a school that is funded to a lesser extent than other schools.

What does that mean? It means that their kids go to a school that some people describe as a fire trap. It is a school where the doors do not lock properly. In order to lock them in -40° weather, so the cold does not come in, they have to a use a chain and a lock. It means the fire alarm system does not work. In fact, when Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development built the school, it hooked up those little fire alarm contraptions that we see everywhere else. It put them on the walls throughout the school and never hooked up the wiring to a fire alarm system. Guess what? There is no fire alarm system. Not only is there no fire alarm system, but as a result there is no sprinkler system, and due to the underfunding, there are no fire extinguishers.

My question in the House for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development is whether he would be okay with his kids going to a school like that. Why should the youth of Little Grand Rapids and first nations across this country go to schools that are dangerous, underfunded, falling apart, and full of mould, that do not have enough books, do not have enough teachers, and do not have enough resources, and that are setting them up to fail?

When we talk about the history of colonialism and paternalism that first nations have faced in this country, we cannot just talk about history, because it is happening today. It is happening in the way first nations people face unequal standards across the board, whether it be education, health, employment, housing, or infrastructure. The list goes on.

To see what is most fundamentally clear in the response to the needs of first nations youth and the kind of paternalism we see, one has to go no further than the approach the government has taken on Bill C-33, the first nations education act. The reason I say that is that a fundamental obligation of the federal government to consult with first nations people has not been adhered to in the development of this critical bill.

First nations across the country, certainly those in Manitoba, have been clear that, without consultation, the bill cannot be supported. It is not because they have not made clear the importance of consultation. They have made it clear and have been consistent over the last number of years.

In December 2012, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada began consultations on an education act. In July 2013 the department released a document called “Developing a First Nation Education Act: A Blueprint for Legislation”. With few amendments, that blueprint became a draft legislative proposal for a first nations education act in October 2013. I am sure all too many members of the government will remember that the draft proposal was condemned by first nations educators, leaders, and activists overwhelmingly.

On the very issue we are discussing today, on the critical issue of education for first nations, first nations have told us the direction they want to take and their priorities.

In 2013 a special assembly the Assembly of First Nations highlighted five priorities: first, respect and recognition of inherent rights and title, treaty rights, and first nations control of first nations education jurisdiction; second, statutory guarantee of funding; third, funding to support first nations education systems that are grounded in indigenous languages and cultures; fourth, mechanisms to ensure reciprocal accountability and no unilateral federal oversight or authority; and fifth, ongoing dialogue and co-development of options. Those five priorities were laid out clearly in a very public manner by first nations themselves, and sadly, the federal government failed to adhere to those priorities.

What we hear from the federal government is rhetoric that is at first premised on having spoken with first nations and of having heard real concerns. Then when I and my colleagues raise the concern that first nations across the country have not been consulted on this legislation, when they need to be consulted, we hear threats, intimidation, and the same old colonial attitudes that first nations have put up with for centuries.

It is clear that first nations across this country are saying no to the first nations education act. I and my colleagues in the NDP are proud to stand with them. I am proud to stand with first nations educators who are speaking out against the first nations education act.

I would like to share the words of Janice Mokokis, an educator and lawyer from Alberta, who has been involved with the Idle No More movement. She has been clear in her opposition to the first nations education act. Janice tells us:

There have been rallies and teach-in's held across the country to inform the Canadian public and First Nations about the implications of this Bill. People who have attended the rallies include children, mothers, fathers, teachers, professionals, leaders and those that would be directly affected by this...[government's actions]. There has been consistent opposition about the Conservative's agenda what they deem to be good for First Nations on Education. The Conservative's idea of 'consultation' needs to be closely questioned and critically examined. For example: In the Saskatoon consultation, people were...pushed out of the 'education consultation'.

It was made clear that they were not welcome to have their voices heard.

I also stand in solidarity with people in the blue dot campaign, who made clear their opposition to the government's desire for them not to be welcome at the announcement on the Kainai first nation in Alberta. Members of that nation and first nations people from across the country were there to hear an announcement of legislation that has everything to do with their future, and yet they were not even welcome to stay in the room.

It is clear that there is opposition from coast to coast to coast. First nations people are saying that their inherent rights are not being respected, that their treaty right to education is not being respected, and that the right to consultation that they have under the Canadian Constitution and that is recognized in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is not being respected. The necessity of consultation is not being respected.

The reality is that first nations youth sit by and suffer as a result of the way the Conservative government is approaching a fundamental part of their development and future. We know the statistics are grim. Secondary school data over the last number of years identify the rate of first nations graduation at approximately 36%, compared to the Canadian graduation rate of 72%. Some 61% of first nations young adults have not completed high school, compared with 13% of non-aboriginal people in Canada.

In 2010, there were more than 515 first nations elementary and secondary schools available to approximately 109,000 first nations students resident on reserve. Over 64% of these students attended 515 on-reserve schools operated by first nations. The majority, 75%, were enrolled in either kindergarten or elementary school.

First nations youth is the largest young population in our country. I am so privileged to have had a chance to visit first nations across our region and look into the bright faces of these little kids, who want to be doctors, lawyers, teachers, and carpenters and who want to do great things. All I can think of is the way I come to work every day to look at a government, a Prime Minister, and a Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development that do everything in their power to ignore the voices of their communities, educators, and leaders. They say they are doing the right thing and they say they are going to do the right thing, but after the next election, maybe in a few years, or maybe if they get re-elected. Maybe. All the while, these young people are left in limbo.

I am also fortunate to have learned from elders. They are elders who fought as part of the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood, fought against the white paper, and fought against the control that the federal government had on their education. They fought back, and they fought for first nations control of first nations education. Many of these elders are not with us today, owing to the challenging life situations in our communities and the shorter life spans that first nations people have. However, in my conversations with them and in my journey to Parliament, they taught me a very clear lesson, that first nations control over first nations education is fundamental to the success of the education system. It is fundamental to the success of first nations youth as they go forward. This is because first nations know what their nations need.

We know about education in first nations language; youth who learn their first nations language succeed at great rates. We know that when they have the resources in their schools to learn their mother tongue, the historic language of their people, they will have opportunities that other youth do not have. We know that when first nations have control over the kind of curriculum, priorities, and lessons that are shared with their youth, their students succeed.

I think of first nations like Roseau River, Peguis, Fisher River, and others that have had very successful models when it comes to education. It is not because the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development told them how to do it. In fact, it is the absolute opposite. It is these first nations that have stood up and sometimes, with the few resources they have, pulled together extraordinary people. They have supported the education of their youth, who have gone on to become experts and specialists in education and have come back to their communities and invested in the resource that is most important to them: their youth.

One would think that, in seeing the successes and knowing the way graduation rates in first nations increase when there is proper funding and proper support, when there is a focus on first nations language, the Department of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs would celebrate, that it would say that first nations control over first nations education is critical.

Consulting with first nations on further steps, on a first nations education program, is not only critical but first nations need to be leading that direction. Instead, what we have is a slap in the face from the federal government, which has a fiduciary obligation to first nations that makes it very clear that it does not matter what success these students have, it does not matter what success these leaders have had in fighting for education in their communities, with its response to promise action and change and to do that with a father-knows-best mentality, that what it knows best is what is going to go.

Some years ago I had the honour of sitting with leaders and grassroots people in Thompson at the office of the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, where we saw live the apology the Prime Minister made to first nations people about the tragedy of the residential school system. I remember it moved all of us. I am proud that our leader Jack Layton was integral in that important historic day. There were tears. There was sobbing. There were people who were very emotional about that apology, people who had been very clear about the abuse, the oppression, and the racism they had faced. However, there was also an overwhelming sense of hope, hope that things can change, that a new spirit of reconciliation was guiding our country.

Over the last six or seven years, I cannot say how many people I have met across northern Manitoba, how many first nations people, who have said obviously that apology meant nothing to the Prime Minister. People took the time to believe and to enter into that spirit of reconciliation. Unfortunately, through the actions of Prime Minister, not just in looking at Bill C-33 but also Bills S-2, S-6 and S-8, as well as omnibus bills like Bills C-45 and C-38, we can look at the long list of legislative actions that the government has taken that fly in the face of that apology, of that spirit of reconciliation, of that commitment that the relationship with first nations would be different.

At the end of the day, is there anything more important than investing in the future of our young people? In the one area of education, the federal government had the chance to change course and maybe remember the statement that the Prime Minister had made in terms of that apology and act in the spirit of that apology. Instead, he and his government have chosen to take a very different approach, an approach that is clearly not only supported by first nations but is extremely deeply problematic in terms of the future of first nations education in our country.

In closing, I am proud to stand with first nations in Manitoba who oppose the first nations education act and who are very clear in demanding far better from the government, from Canada, and from the crown when it comes to the future of education for first nations.

Opposition Motion—Time allocation and closure

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be splitting my time today with the opposition House leader, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster. He has done an incredible job of standing up to the government in the short time he has been in the position, holding them to account and pushing back on what has been a continual and constant abuse of Parliament and our democratic and fundamental principles which we all share as Canadians. I believe that Conservatives share them as well, when they are able to unleash themselves for that split second and realize what their jobs are meant to be here.

We see a motion today that we welcome from the Liberal Party, although we find it passing strange, on two fronts. We welcome the opportunity to talk about free and fair debate in Canada's Parliament, to talk about the abuses that the Conservatives have unleashed more than 55 times on Canada's Parliament.

There are two considerations and concerns that we have with what the Liberals have put forward. I am sure my hon. colleague the opposition House leader will elaborate on these, so I will pass over them briefly. The first issue is that the motion as it is presented today is too limited. It only seeks to curtail the government's power to use time allocation and the extraordinary power of shutting down debate in too narrow a way. We would seek to perhaps expand it, and my friend from Burnaby—New Westminster will elaborate on that.

The second piece is that this may be a new-found love for accountability and transparency from the Liberal Party. As we have seen, when it held the same position as the Conservatives currently do, it too used this same extraordinary power.

Canadians can tolerate a lot from their political representatives, and we know that we ask them to do that. They tolerate the various assortment of scandals and unfortunate choices, and the bad choices, made by the current government. However, they will not tolerate hypocrisy. They do not appreciate hypocrisy from any party, in this case, the Liberals, who used time allocation on certain bills that it should never have been used on.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, it was you, in 2011, who moved a motion to limit the powers of shutting down debate by the government, which was rejected. It was the NDP who also sought most recently to give increased powers to the Speaker. That was to discern between when the government was using time allocation as it was designed, for when a debate has gone extensively beyond what would be considered a normal parameter for discussion, and limiting it to that instance rather than what we see from the government.

As my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster said, it was on a massive omnibus bill, or ominous bill as some people call them now. They are Trojan Horse bills. We have seen Bills C-38 and C-45, and the most recent budget implementation act, Bill C-31, that are incredibly expansive in their nature. They are hundreds of pages long, and in this case affects more than 40 Canadian laws. It would change 40 Canadian laws in this one case.

The extent of these massive bills would be enough that most people would consider a full and extensive debate to be proper. However, after a short 25 minutes, the Conservatives said that is enough. They said that we need to shut down the debate on this most recent ominous bill; we need to shut off any conversation about all of these laws that are being affected.

When we look through the debates of the past when the Liberals used the same tactics that the Conservatives are using, it is passing strange that it was the Conservatives, who were then in opposition, who had so many problems with that abuse of power.

Let me read one quote. This is one of my favourites. It is good. It is someone being prescient and intelligent, and doing their job as a parliamentarian. Let me quote the following from a debate on November 26, 1996, which took place right here:

In my view, the procedure of using time allocation for electoral law, doing it quickly and without the consent of the other political parties, is the kind of dangerous application of electoral practices that we are more likely to find in third world countries.

Who would say something like that? Who would say that the abuse of power that the Liberal government of the day was using to shut down debate on changing our electoral laws was representative of something “that we are more likely to find in third world countries”? It was the current Prime Minister who said that. It is true.

The current Prime Minister, when he was in opposition, was faced with a Liberal majority that was unilaterally changing electoral laws—not nearly as extensively as the Conservatives are now doing, by the way—and sought to shut down debate in the House of Commons, having achieved no consensus or agreement from the other opposition parties. It was the current Prime Minister who said that this was an abuse of power; this was wrong.

Lo and behold, we now have Bill C-23, the unfair elections act, which the Conservatives have designed in its very DNA to be unfair, to be undemocratic, and to allow an advantage to Conservative candidates in the next election rather than winning fairly. They have put that into their election bill with no agreement from any other political party.

Then, to add insult to that abuse, to that injury, they have shut down debate prematurely and rushed it to committee. They are now in the Senate doing the same thing—the unaccountable, unelected Senate that this same Prime Minister appointed. The hypocrisies and irony in this instance are so rich that they approach the level of appalling.

To my Liberal friends, I hope this new found love of democratic principles is sincere and will be sustained, regardless of which side of the House they are sitting on. New Democrats have a long and proud record of standing up against the abuses of time allocation, of shutting down debate, of allowing members to freely express themselves on behalf of constituents. That is what we are here for. It is not to advance one political party or the other. The very structure of the House of Commons is simple, yet beautiful in its nature: to hold the government of the day to account.

As I said to my Conservative colleague across the way, that is a responsibility, not only of the opposition parties but of those who sit in the so-called government backbenches. That is their job. Unchecked power eventually becomes corrupted, as we saw from the Conservatives as soon as they gained their majority.

It was a very slight majority. If we look at the design and the build of the seats in the House of Commons, it is what we call the rump, the little section of extra flow over the Conservative seats in the corner that we see during voting time. It is called the rump, by all parties; I do not mean to pass any judgment on the quality of those members. However, it is that tiny group over there who represent the majority that the government has, having achieved just 38% of the vote in the last election. When we break it down, it was only 25% of all eligible voters in the country, and they ended up with 100% of the power.

What do the Conservatives do with that power? Do they act responsibly? Heavens, no. They introduce these massive omnibus bills and then slap on time allocation, shutting down debate on legislation that is so incredibly complex that nobody on the government benches actually understands what they are voting for. That is a shame.

This motion is about a democratic principle that is essential for Parliament to work properly for Canadians. I fully understand that Canadians are quite cynical about the current state of our politics, and for good reason. It is only natural, what with this corrupt, anti-democratic, and by all accounts very weak government. What is more, this government is short on ideas. The budget implementation bill is short on tools for rebuilding our economy.

There is a shortfall of some 300,000 jobs in the industrial sector and for young Canadians who are still trying to find work. They are coping with an unemployment rate that is twice that of the rest of Canada. What are we seeing in the government? We are seeing an extremely corrupt system, a shortage of ideas, and a problem, namely that of disliking democracy.

What is that terrible expression that I have seen in a comic strip somewhere: “that the beatings will continue until morale improves”. The Conservatives heap abuse upon abuse on Parliament and ask why it is that the opposition parties are so resistant to their mandate and to their practices?

Well, with what we have seen, time and time again, whether it is the unfair elections act, these massive omnibus bills, the way it approaches trade negotiations with other countries, or the general approach that the government has to democracy, I look back, almost fondly, to those days of the Reform Party. It seemed to at least have stood for something. I did not agree with it, but it seemed to have stood for something. Now we see what these guys have become. Power seems to have corrupted them and left them without those principles. It is a shame.

We will be supporting the motion. I look forward to the continued debate.

Report Stage

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to rise. I would have asked a question, except I have some issues I can pose to the entire Conservative caucus as opposed to any one individual member.

I want to start off by addressing the comments of the previous speaker about reaching a balanced budget by 2015. That is going to be much easier for the Conservatives because last year, as we understand it, there were $10 billion allocated in the budget they did not spend. There were people who were expecting monies, heritage and other places that was not spent. In other words, the Conservatives broke promises to people, which does not come as a great surprise. Therefore, hallelujah, they are going to announce that we have this money to put toward the deficit, so it is more important to meet this one target than it is to follow through on their commitments to Canadians and Canadian organizations.

I sat on the finance committee for a period of time through the last omnibus bills and all of the what I would call nothing short of craziness happened at committee as a result of the fact that so many things had been piled on top of the other that actually belonged, in our opinion, in other committees. With Bill C-4, the Conservatives are doing it again.

Of the last bills that came before that committee, Bill C-38, was the biggest one with which I was involved. It changed the Navigable Waters Act, the Environmental Assessment Act and all kinds of things that a person outside this place would ask what it had to do with the budget. The fact was it did not. It was just a tactic on the part of the government to jam things together to get it through as fast as it could, to keep it from being at committees where it could receive the proper scrutiny by members and the witnesses who could bring the expertise before the committee to fortify the situation.

Before the prorogation, we were dealing with Bill C-54 about the not criminally responsible. Some of the witnesses who came from the health community said that nobody in the psychiatric community was asked about that bill. All of this is symptomatic of what is happening with the government in the sense of not wanting to hear from anyone, MPs or anyone else.

My view and the view of the New Democratic Party is that committees are there to make bills better. We are there to help the government. The government brings forward a bill and we have a critique of it and recommendations, which are called amendments, never see the light of day because they are voted down at committee or motions are passed at committee to limit the time we have. If we do not meet that time allocation, anything that has not been voted on is deemed to have failed. Therefore, we could have a list of 25 good quality amendments and Conservatives will not even listen to them.

That anti-democratic aspect limits the ability of the sincere efforts of the House to try to improve legislation in a way that is just baffling. How in the world can Conservatives justify shutting out information, even if it is not from us? Information from the public or from experts in any given field relative to the budget or relative to those things that have been piled into the budget, how can they shut that down without giving it any consideration?

It makes us wonder what is behind the agenda. This is not new. As I said, it happened with Bills C-38, C-45, C-60. Other speakers today talked about the fact that all of those bills had some blatant mistakes that successive bills had to correct.

I am troubled again by the fact the Canadian Federation of Municipalities warned the current government and the previous government about a deficit in infrastructure to the tune of somewhere between $175 billion and $200 billion that needed to be taken care of now. Look at the situation with the bridge in Montreal, and we understand how desperate it can get really quickly.

It looks like some interim work has been done to repair the bridge and get the traffic flowing, but stepping back from that, we have almost $200 billion elsewhere in our country that deserves support. I believe the Minister of Finance has said that there is $800 billion of dead capital that businesses are holding onto for a couple of reasons. There is some sensibility to what they are doing because in 2008 they had trouble getting money from the banks. We had the lowest interest rates practically in the history of our country, so why was the government not taking 10-year bonds and partnering with the business community to start addressing some of the infrastructure needs?

In my community of Hamilton, we are near desperate on sewage. I hear of figures somewhere close to $200 billion of a deficit on Hamilton sewage. Basements of houses on certain streets in Hamilton flood every time there is a serious rainfall. They cannot even get insurance anymore. It is very clear for us.

The previous speaker made reference to temporary foreign workers. The figures I have may not be precise but they are certainly close. Two or three years ago we had roughly 240,000 new immigrants to Canada. They have support here. They have a sponsor who is responsible for all of their costs for 10 years, so there is no liability to us for them. However, in that period there were 241,000 temporary workers.

The temporary worker program was initially put in as support for the farmers. There was lots of work Canadians did not want to do and farmers needed help, and that program was originally set up to bring them in. Then all of a sudden, certain aspects of the business community woke up to the fact that they could pay temporary foreign workers less money and they would not have obligations to them. By the way, because they are here on a temporary permit, if they do not do exactly what they want, they get to go home really quickly. People from other countries come here. They are very dependent on money to help their families back home. It is a very insecure situation and they are being abused by the government and employers in Canada. That is shameful. There is no other word for it.

From my perspective, to hear the Conservatives talk about some modest change, I would love to have seen that at the immigration committee, to talk about temporary foreign workers and to look at that program in-depth, to step back from it and make some suggestions to help with that, but that opportunity was not afforded to us.

Going a little further on this, Bill C-4, as previous omnibus bills, piled together amendments to over 70 laws. One of them is the Public Service labour relations employment board act. That is a new addition. Another one is the Mackenzie gas project impacts fund act.

Why do we need a new act for labour relations when we have had labour relations in the country between the public service workers and the government for many decades? Why do the Conservatives suddenly need to change that? If we do need to change it, why is it not done through the appropriate department and the appropriate committee rather than a budget bill? It sounds like somebody is up to something. If I were a worker, with the number of cuts there has been to the public service workers already, I would be a little nervous just about the title of that bill.

Contained in Bill C-4 are very vicious anti-worker and anti-veteran measures. I never thought I would stand in the House of Commons in our country and say our government has anti-veteran policies.

The Conservatives have made changes to health and safety protection for workers. My time is running out and I have not even started my speech, but this is part of the give and take in this place. The last speaker spoke about some things that drew my attention to it, but if I have to close, I am certainly proud to close on defending veterans.

There is a Veterans Review and Appeal Board. We have seen day in and day out in the media of late where the ombudsman has spoken out in defence of veterans saying that they are not getting the health care or the protection they deserve and there are numerous budget cuts to that department. That is shameful. One thing Parliament must stand for is the veterans of our country.

This is an anti-worker, anti-veteran bill and it is absolutely shameful.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could speak to the fact that we now have what appears to be a new practice that did not exist under previous administrations, being two omnibus budget bills a year.

That is what happened in 2012, with Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, and that is what is happening this year with Bill C-60 and Bill C-4. It means that every single budget is followed by a omnibus bill, which in the last two years has comprised 800 to 900 pages each time, of multiple separate acts. The Canadian Bar Association made the point on Bill C-4 that this reduces the ability to have proper hearings and scrutiny on each of the component parts of the legislation, and it violates parliamentary practice.

I wonder if my colleague from Winnipeg North would agree.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2

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

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the member's speech. It is as though we are living in a parallel universe. The people I have talked to are worried about the fact that funds for social housing are disappearing, that child and family poverty in parts of our country have not gone down, that people are working two and three jobs just to feed their children and that student loan debt is increasing. Municipalities have been calling on the government to invest in infrastructure, whether it is sewer, water or roads.

With respect to the environment, over the last couple of weeks we saw Canada being castigated on the world stage for its grim record on greenhouse gas emission reductions, plus any of the other initiatives we might be taking around prevention and mitigation. Our former leader, the late Jack Layton, used to say that we needed to talk about the fact that it was fine to fix the roof, but it did not do us any good if the foundation was crumbling. I would argue that the foundation in Canada is crumbling under the government's watch.

With regard to Bill C-4, the NDP is opposing it both on process and content. This is just like the three previous omnibus budget bills, C-38, C-45 and C-60.

Bill C-4 would amend 70 pieces of legislation. It contains two entirely new acts, the Mackenzie gas project impacts fund act and the public service labour relations and employment board. In talking about this, I want to refer to the process for one moment. It is our responsibility as parliamentarians to thoroughly review legislation that comes before us, to call witnesses and propose amendments. We are not able to do that in this current democratic deficit climate.

I want to quote a couple of people who have commented on the government process with regard to omnibus bills.

In iPolitics, former finance officials Scott Clark and Peter DeVries stated:

Budget vagueness is a troubling trend. Vagueness and obtuseness have featured in successive budgets, with details provided in the omnibus budget bills. The real budget has now become the budget omnibus bill. This undermines the credibility and transparency of the budget and requires much more diligence in assessing budget proposals.

Andrew Coyne stated:

Not only does this make a mockery of the confidence convention—shielding bills that would otherwise be defeatable within a money bill, which is not—it makes it impossible to know what Parliament really intended by any of it. We've no idea whether MPs supported or opposed any particular bill in the bunch, only that they voted for the legislation that contained them. There is no common thread that runs between them, no overarching principle; they represent not a single act of policy, but a sort of compulsory buffet....But there is something quite alarming about Parliament being obliged to rubber-stamp the government's whole legislative agenda at one go.

I could not agree more with Mr. Coyne.

The challenge here is that time after time we have heard the government get up and say that the NDP has voted against X. What it does not say is that it was an omnibus budget bill that would change several different pieces of acts and regulations. Perhaps there were pieces of the legislation that we agreed with but also pieces we could not agree with. Therefore, we do a balancing act. We take a look at the overall public good, then we determine whether we will vote for or against. Unfortunately, with the way the government acts, we largely end up voting against its omnibus budget bills because we do not see them as being in the public good overall.

I want to highlight some of the changes proposed by this legislation. As I mentioned, it will amend or repeal 70 pieces of legislation in over 300 pages. It strips health and safety officers of their powers and puts nearly all of these powers into the hands of the minister. It significantly weakens the ability of employees to refuse work in unsafe conditions. It moves to eliminate binding arbitration as a method to resolve disputes in the public service. It guts Canada's most venerable scientific research institution, the National Research Council. It reduces the number of permanent members on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board and repeals the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board. It pushes ahead with the Conservatives' ill-advised $350 million tax hike on labour-sponsored ventured capital funds and allows for three directors of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board to be non-Canadian residents.

Many of the changes that proposed deserved separate legislation so we could have had that kind of thorough review. Instead, we have a bill that was rammed through and presented to three different committees in very limited time frames. Any amendments that were proposed by the official opposition or the opposition parties were rejected out of hand.

That is not good governance. That is what the Conservatives claim they stand for in this country: good governance, accountability, and transparency. None of those three are true.

I just want to touch on the Parliamentary Budget Officer for just one moment, another officer of Parliament who has been under attack by the government. He has been forced to go to court to try to get documents to demonstrate what kinds of savings are being proposed by the government.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that the overall impact of budget 2012, fiscal update 2012, and budget 2013 would be a loss of 67,000 jobs by 2017 and a 0.57% reduction in GDP. This is a significant decline in economic growth.

That leads me to the smoke and mirrors games played by the Conservatives. An article from November 13, on Global News, indicated that the government had“sat on more than $10 billion in funds Parliament approved and Canadians were told they could expect in 2012-13 through a slew of programs in dozens of departments”.

The federal government held on to more than $10 billion it was expected to spend in 2012-13, with almost half coming from two departments, according to recently published financial documents. These were funds Parliament approved and Canadians were told they could expect...including the Senate Ethics Officer, disability and death compensation at Veterans Affairs, and weather and environmental services for Canadians at Environment Canada.

I want to touch on one particular part of this fund, and that is Transport Canada. I do not know where most members live and whether the municipalities where they live are suffering the kinds of infrastructure deficits many of our communities are suffering from. Many of our communities have aging infrastructure, and this is a deficit that is being passed on to future generations, because we have refused consistently over decades to provide the federal contribution to updating and upgrading the infrastructure.

Interestingly, Transport Canada, with Infrastructure Canada, had the most trouble spending its budget.

In 2012-13, that department was responsible for almost $1.6 billion of Transport's overall $2.5 billion lapse, according to the Public Accounts....

Within Infrastructure Canada, a large chunk of the lapse in 2012-13 came from the Building Canada Fund, an $8.8 billion project announced in 2007. The project was set up to support national, regional, and municipal projects related to public transit, green energy and drinking water, among other priorities.

Last year, the two components of the funds—the “major infrastructure” and “community” components—were together slated to spend more than $2.2 billion. Only $1.1 billion made it out the door.

That is shameful. If that is the way the government is going to move toward balancing the budget, it is balancing the budget on the backs of our communities.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer suggested, in a review of the supplementary estimates, that the government has been unable to spend approximately $10 billion of the budgetary authorities provided by Parliament over each of the past three years. As such,

Parliamentarians may wish to seek clarification regarding why this level of unspent money remains so high, what measures will be undertaken by departments and agencies to ensure that spending directed by Parliament occurs, and whether all of the $5.4 billion sought in these supplementary estimates is actually required.

That is just one example. I just want to close by saying that child poverty is not even being tackled in this budget. I want to point to the grim record in British Columbia, where child and family poverty has simply not been tackled. There is absolutely a federal government role in this, and I would actually encourage members in this House to support my Bill C-233, which proposes a poverty reduction plan. The federal government can take some leadership.

I have just a couple of numbers here. B.C. had a child poverty rate of 18.6%, the worst rate of any province in Canada using the before-tax, low-income cutoffs of Statistics Canada as the measure of poverty.

By any measure, I think each and every one of us in this House would agree that children should come first and that it is time for the government to actually demonstrate leadership by putting in place programs and services that support our families and our communities.

Motions in Amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, I was not sure if my hon. colleague had given the member for Parkdale—High Park a promotion or demotion by making her leader of the Green Party.

However, on this particular debate, the Green Party and the NDP are on the same page. We completely lament the fact that this is an omnibus bill once again, with multiple sections that were very much deserving of a full parliamentary review and full and proper hearings in committee.

I want to begin my analysis of Bill C-4 in presenting the various amendments I have made for deletions with two fairly brief points to the substance of the abuse of Parliament that omnibus budget bills represent.

We have heard it said by Conservative members in their talking points that this is nothing new. In every debate we have on budget omnibus bills, we are told this is normal. However, although I have only been a member of Parliament since 2011, I have been around a long time, and I know that we have never had budget omnibus bills of the staggering length of these bills until the current administration. It is only under the current Prime Minister that we have seen an omnibus budget bill top 200 pages.

Between 1994 and 2005, there were occasions of omnibus budget bills, and they were averaging 73 pages. The first big whopper of an omnibus budget bill occurred under the current Prime Minister in 2009. The 2010 budget omnibus bill was almost 900 pages.

Then, by 2012, the Conservatives started a new process. Ironically, my very first question in the House once I was elected was on the 2011 budget. I asked the Minister of Finance if he was planning the abuse of process constituted by an omnibus budget bill. He said he was not. Well, 2011 was indeed the last year in which we did not see omnibus budget bills. By 2012, the Conservative administration had started this new practice of putting forward two omnibus budget bills. It now refers to it as a tradition, almost like having Easter in the spring and Christmas in December. It is a tradition, apparently, that we are now going to see a 300- to 400-page spring omnibus budget bill, followed by 200-, 300-, or 400-page fall omnibus budget bill. The government has done this now for 2012 and 2013.

What this does is make a mockery of Parliament. I cannot put it more strongly than that. The idea that we would have disparate, unconnected bills, many of them never mentioned in the budget, that do substantial damage—this one in particular to labour relations, previous ones to environmental concerns—is an offence to Parliament. There is no excuse for it.

Second, I know there has been a lot of public interest in the fate of members of Parliament like myself and my party. I quite clearly represent a party with fewer than 12 MPs; I represent a party with one MP. However, I am a party in the House. So are my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois, and so are four independent members of Parliament. We were treated differently, since there were multiple motions carried through multiple committees to require that substantive amendments be submitted at committee, where we are not members and do not have equal and full rights of participation.

I will set that aside for now. That is why all of my amendments presented today are deletions. I did have substantive amendments I would have liked to present at report stage. I had 26 substantive amendments that I did present to the finance committee, and they went through a very quick ritual slaughter. I would have liked for the people of Canada to know about those amendments. I would have liked to have brought them forward at report stage.

Before I move to the specific parts of the bill that Canadians need to know about, I want to make an overarching comment.

As the only member of Parliament for the Green Party, one of the great advantages of having to watch everything while also doing due diligence on behalf of my constituents is that I am able to see everything in a comprehensive overview, not just in silos. There are themes here. There are disparate bills, but the manoeuvres are the same. The manoeuvres go in the direction of increasing ministerial discretion, reducing objective criteria, removing boards and agencies that have independent expertise, and putting bills forward instead to systems of political whim.

That certainly was the case in budget omnibus Bill C-38 and Bill C-45. They reduced criteria, letting the minister of environment or the minister of natural resources make decisions without guidance.

In this particular omnibus budget bill, we see it happening quite a lot again. I will mention just a few of the areas.

Under the Canada Labour Code changes, which my friend from the official opposition already referred to, the changes go in the direction of removing health and safety officers and leaving decisions about health and safety up to the minister.

The same kinds of changes have happened in immigration. In Bill C-4, we see substantial changes in part 3, division 16, to the expression of interest system, basically for immigrants who are coming by way of economic advantage. The decision-making would now increasingly be by ministerial discretion.

Another area where we see ministerial discretion replacing an objective system is in division 14, in which we would repeal the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Act and replace it with a very similar Mackenzie gas project impacts funds act. In this change the one big difference between the two acts would be to replace an objective corporation, a regional organization that would make decisions about where the funds go, entirely with ministerial discretion.

My friend and colleague from the NDP, the member for Western Arctic, had this to say about it, because he has a lot of expertise in this area. He said:

There was an independent body set up by the Conservative government through an act of Parliament to manage this money and ensure that it was managed in a correct and careful fashion, following the procedures that had been set up and the planning that had taken place in these communities over a period of two years, from 2006 to 2008.

Then I have another excerpt from his quote:

What we have now is a move to a system that would have a Conservative minister handing out cheques for particular projects as he or she deems appropriate.

Before diving into the specifics of Bill C-4, I wanted to raise into higher profile a consistent ideological theme: moving more and more decision-making in our system of government, which is a parliamentary democracy, away from Parliament, and at the same time moving decision-making of ministers into more and more discretion with less and less guidance.

Those of us who have practised law at any time know that administrative law provides a certain amount of accountability whereby a minister has to follow certain prescribed considerations or in fact delegates authority to expert boards. Less and less will we see this. More and more will we see ministerial discretion. As well, we know that ministers do not really exercise discretion, not in this administration. They do what they are told by the people at PMO, who I think one Conservative described brilliantly as a series of Stepford wives who insist on certain decisions being made a certain way.

To raise my concerns in brief, this bill would do serious damage to the health and safety provisions of the Canada Labour Code. It would change the definition of danger and the ability to refuse dangerous work. It would remove the health and safety officers.

As well, a different section of this bill would change the Public Service Labour Relations Act, again for more ministerial discretion about which aspects of public service work would be considered to be essential and therefore not open to the usual recourse that trade unions have in negotiations.

We see changes to the Immigration Act to increase ministerial discretion. I would like to cite concerns from the Canadian Bar Association on the immigration law section. They wrote to the committee:

The CBA Section has concerns about the limited consultation on this important change to Canadian immigration law and policy. Bill C-4 would substantially change the way in which economic immigrants are selected to come to Canada. The Bill would remove these changes from Parliamentary scrutiny and approval and give what appears to be unilateral authority to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to change selection rules and procedures.

Another section of the bill that has gotten very limited public attention is the section that appears in part 3, division 7, which is in aid of getting rid of our deficit by selling off assets. This is the sale of 20,000 hectares described as the Dominion Coal Blocks land.

My amendments at committee, had they been approved, would have provided some conservation protection. These lands are among the most ecologically significant in Canada. They are the blocks in the Flathead Valley and Elk Valley. They are an integral part of what is called the Crown of the Continent, right near the Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park, which is an international peace park on both sides of the border.

The Flathead has been protected by the strange reality of its ownership by the federal government over these years, but it is now to be sold for coal mining. We need to ensure that careful concern is applied to the conveyance of these lands and to ensure that we do not contaminate adjacent park areas. This is a concern already expressed by the United Nations.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for seconding all of these changes.

Let us let Canadians know what all these amendments are in aid of. We are now debating Bill C-4, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget, except that we are dealing with another attempt by the Conservatives to pull the wool over the eyes of Canadians. We want to slow the process down so that Canadians are not blindsided again with this omnibus legislation.

This is the fourth omnibus budget bill the government has brought in. Bill C-4 amends over 70 different pieces of legislation in over 300 pages. It follows on the heels of previous omnibus budget Bills C-38, C-45, and C-60. The bill contains entirely new laws: the Mackenzie gas project impacts fund act and the public service labour relations and employment board act. There are brand new acts within the bill.

Like its predecessor omnibus budget bills, this bill contains a wide variety of measures, many of which are not even in the budget and do not have any relationship to the budget. They are changes such as gutting health and safety protections for federal jurisdiction workers; cuts to reductions at the Veterans Review and Appeal Board; repealing the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board; and changes to how we select Supreme Court judges.

These are not budget items, yet they are crammed into an omnibus bill, within a very short timeframe, to evade the scrutiny of Parliament. Canadians will not really have a full appreciation of the changes being made. It negates the opportunity of parliamentarians to hear a full range of witnesses, to engage in thorough examination, discussion, and debate about a bill, and to then propose reasoned amendments for improvements that would help make these laws better.

As we have seen in the past, because of the short timeframe, bills have been rushed through Parliament and passed, and then the government has had to go back and correct them after the fact because of mistakes it had made.

With this bill, as with all the other omnibus bills, Conservatives accepted not one amendment. They would not change even one comma. No one else has any good ideas. They would change nothing. In our discussions at committee, there were several amendments proposed. The NDP proposed 24. Other opposition parties proposed amendments. Not one change was accepted, as in the previous omnibus budget bills.

There was a time limit imposed on our study at committee. We had only two days of witnesses, including an hour with the minister, and there was a deadline of midnight. Everything we had not voted on in the bill was deemed passed, and if it was an amendment, it was deemed rejected. That certainly did not allow us much latitude for making changes or even for trying to slow down the parliamentary process and review.

Canadians are offended by this. We have heard from many Canadians who are getting the message about the lack of democracy in these omnibus budget bills. However, we also heard expert testimony.

The Canadian Bar Association testified at our committee during the two days of study. It said that “eschewing consultation and employing omnibus bills diminish the quality of our laws and the democratic process. We urge you to reconsider these practices”.

We completely agree.

We heard a variety of witnesses oppose the process of omnibus budget bills. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation agreed with us that this is a bad way to bring in legislation.

What it does is attach unpopular measures to popular measures and does not allow the separation of issues so that there can be good and thorough debate. It prevents separate votes on issues by lumping them all together. Obviously, it is less transparent and fundamentally less democratic. We believe that this evasion of parliamentary scrutiny is not worthy of the House.

Let me deal with the notion that this bill is in any way aiding the priorities of Canadians in terms of creating jobs and a stronger economy. In this bill, the Conservatives have failed to put forward significant job creation measures at a time when we are seeing stagnating incomes, stagnating wages, insecurity in the workplace, job insecurity, and all-time high household debt. This is at a time when we have a current account trade deficit of over $60 billion, which is a record for our country.

We believe that what the Conservative government ought to do is deal with the real challenges the economy is facing. Let me quote a couple of sources. The Conservatives may feel that they know better, but let us hear what the International Monetary Fund had to say:

...the IMF no longer views Canada as the growth engine of the G7 economies. While bettering the European members, Canadian growth is projected to play second fiddle to the U.S. in 2012, 2013 and 2014. Growth in “other advanced countries” not in the G7 club, such as the Scandinavian nations and Australia and New Zealand, are also projected to outperform Canada. Going forward, it predicts the Canadian economy will continue to be held back by high household debt levels and a cooling housing market.

That is the International Monetary Fund.

Business columnist David Olive wrote:

We know from the recent American and British experience with austerity chic that you cannot cut your way to prosperity. Indeed, sucking demand, or cash, out of an economy with cutbacks to government spending—including essential services and infrastructure upgrading—merely adds to the jobless lines and cuts household incomes. That, in turn, drives up social-spending costs related to mounting unemployment.

Clearly, the Conservative government is failing on the economy.

Let us hear from Paul Wells, from Maclean's, in his recent article, “Stephen Harper and the knowledge economy: perfect strangers”. He wrote:

...by the broadest measure of expenditure on research and development, Canada has fallen from 16th out of 41 comparable countries [since] the year Stephen Harper became prime minister...

The Conservative government is failing on so many counts to do the job on the economy, yet it has an omnibus budget bill that would cram in over 60 amendments to the Canada Labour Code. Anyone working anywhere in the federal jurisdiction, not just for the federal government but perhaps in the transportation sector, banking, telecommunications, interprovincial trucking, rail, ships, trains, or airlines, would be affected by this.

It would strip the powers of health and safety inspectors. They could inspect a workplace with a phone call. However, it would not be a qualified inspector; it would just be someone the minister appointed, who would not even have to be qualified.

There are so many regressive changes in this bill that attack the basic rights of people in the workplace. It is a colossal step backward. All Canadian workers should be very concerned about this legislation. It is a colossal step backward for Canadians.

New Democrats will not support the Conservatives' attempt to evade scrutiny by Parliament and Canadians. We oppose this budget and its implementation bills, unless it is revised to reflect the real priorities of Canadian families: creating quality, well-paid jobs; ensuring retirement security; fostering opportunities for young people; and making life for families more affordable.

I see that my time is up. I thank the House for the opportunity, and I welcome questions from my parliamentary colleagues.

An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act (duty to examine)

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating and thanking my friend and colleague from Brome—Missisquoi. His work on this bill shows that he is an ardent defender of his constituents' interests. As an educator and an MP, he is in regular contact with the members of his community and he understands that the people he represents are concerned about our environment.

The hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi also stands up for the interests of all Canadians. This initiative not only benefits his constituents, but all of us.

I would like to congratulate him on taking this initiative and introducing a well-thought-out and carefully crafted bill in the House of Commons. He began an important debate in the House on the type of government that we want and what we expect from our government.

We must always take into account the impact that our decisions could have on future generations. Bill C-481 serves to remind us that we cannot be shortsighted when it comes to environmental issues. We are responsible for ensuring that any bill introduced in the House meets the needs of today without compromising those of the future.

As my colleague explained, this bill will ensure that we remain committed to the Federal Sustainable Development Act, which was passed unanimously by the House in 2008.

It is a very simple idea and something that all Canadians expect from their government. If we pass a law that says that we support sustainable development, then all of our laws will be in line with those principles.

My colleague from Brome—Missisquoi's idea is beautiful in its simplicity.

Not only would the bill put sustainable development at the forefront of all federal government decision-making, it would integrate sustainable development principles with the policy-making process itself. It would guarantee that all government decisions were in line with the principles of sustainable development that we all seemed so committed to just five years ago.

Bill C-481 does this by reinforcing legislation that already exists. It turns our current strategy for sustainable development into an effective strategy. Unfortunately, the Conservative government does not share my priorities on the environment or, I think, the priorities of a majority of Canadians, for that matter.

The Conservatives have spoken several times about the importance they give to the Federal Sustainable Development Act. Past ministers of the environment, and by now there is quite a roster, have said that the act ensures that the federal decision-making process on matters of the environment is done in a transparent and coherent manner. However, while Conservatives like to mention the Federal Sustainable Development Act, they are all talk and no action.

The government has not been interested in the principles of the act, but it does like to use it as a talking point to distract Canadians from its dismal record in promoting sustainable development and from its failure to act on the environment. Much like Conservatives like to use the word “conservation” without acting or to talk about their missing-in-action oil and gas regulations, it is all about drawing attention away from their failure on these issues. As I have said in the House before, what we need is less rhetoric and more meaningful, forward-looking action.

In the past few years, because of this inaction, we have seen a regression. We are actually moving backward. The Conservative government has been systematically dismantling environmental protection laws and has been using the least transparent methods available. For proof of that, we do not have to go back too far, just to 2012, when the government's infamous omnibus budget bills, Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, were passed, two of the most destructive pieces of legislation I have ever encountered.

The government has consistently disregarded the principles of sustainable development by using omnibus legislation to weaken environmental protections and by passing that legislation without proper examination or debate. Gutting the Fisheries Act, ransacking the Navigable Waters Protection Act, muzzling scientists, completely obliterating the national round table on the environment and the economy, and continuing to subsidize the oil and gas industry with $1.3 billion a year does not sound like sustainable development to me. Neither does denying the science behind climate change, wilfully ignoring the effects of global warming, or failing miserably to meet low emissions targets that we committed to in international climate negotiations.

What else does not sound sustainable? Since coming into power in 2006, the Conservatives have cut Canada's targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 90%. That is not sustainable; it is actually irresponsible. Our actions now mean we are burdening Canadians who will come after us.

The Federal Sustainable Development Act was supposed to signal a change in how the government makes responsible and environmentally conscious decisions on behalf of Canadians. However, it has been five years since this legislation came into effect, and the government has failed to make this crucial transformation.

Implementing an effective sustainable development strategy is an attainable and necessary goal. It is about time that we respect the commitments we made to Canadians in 2008 by passing Bill C-481. We already agreed unanimously to the principles of the bill, so let us give it some teeth.

The bill offers an efficient strategy to achieve this by giving the Department of Justice the responsibility for reviewing bills and ensuring that all proposed legislation responds to the criteria laid out in the Federal Sustainable Development Act, which we all passed. We are not asking for a complete overhaul here. This is not about red tape or another level of bureaucracy; it is a change we can actually implement now.

Bill C-481 should be implemented. The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development noted that the integration of sustainable development in decision-making is an incomplete process. Enabling Bill C-481 would help us to bridge that gap. Operationalizing an effective approach to sustainable development has worked well in Canada, and it has already been done at the provincial level in Quebec.

My leader, the leader of the NDP, in his role as Quebec's minister of the environment, sustainable development and parks, wrote North America's first sustainable development law and amended Quebec's human rights charter to create the right to live in a clean environment. That is not a privilege but a right. That is the attitude we should have in this chamber when we talk about legislation and debate ideas and think about how to work together to create a better Canada. It is a right that we need to work toward. It is a right we need to work hard to protect.

In my last few moments, I would like to turn our attention to the people who live in our ridings, whom we as members of Parliament, represent. These are families in every riding across the country in Victoria, Yellowknife, Winnipeg, Toronto, and my own riding of Halifax. As legislators, we have accepted the responsibility to represent the hopes and dreams of our constituents. For many of those people, their hopes and dreams are better lives and brighter futures for their kids and their families.

However, as it stands now, our children and grandchildren are set to inherit the worst environmental, social, and economic debt the country has ever seen. This is not intergenerational equity. It is not a future that is bright or shining with promise; it is a future that I am afraid of. It is an injustice to leave this legacy behind to the generations that follow ours.

The reality of the situation is that if we do not go forward sustainably and we do not legislate for the future instead of just thinking about the short-term gains, then we are not working to defend the hopes and dreams of our constituents or the people they care about most. We are not doing our jobs as legislators.

We owe it to future generations of Canadians to pass this bill. For them, sustainable development should not be an afterthought, window dressing, or a buzzword. An effective sustainable development policy demands that the principles of sustainability be a part of the policy-making process from the start.

Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue for her question.

In fact, people currently have a very negative perception of the government's ability to establish credibility on environmental safety. Indeed, the Conservatives have gutted all environmental protections in the last budget implementation bills. Also, in Bill C-45, all protections for navigable waters were removed, giving completely free rein to pipeline projects. This is on top of the Conservatives' failure to implement or even consider the recommendations of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

Here we have another fact. It has been mentioned that pipelines and tankers would transport oil and diluted bitumen, but there have not been nearly enough studies about this to know how the government would respond in case of a spill.

Therefore, when the Conservatives make cuts to science and cuts to research and, on top of that, ensure that scientists are muzzled, they lose all credibility to speak about environmental protection, scientific data and facts. It is therefore difficult to trust the Conservatives when they talk about these issues, since they remove all the factual and scientific information that could reassure us.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in order for politicians to get through their very long days and heavy schedules, they have to take some pleasure in what they are doing. I must admit, however, that I did not enjoy reading Bill C-4 at all.

I therefore took a few minutes before writing these words to escape into my own mind a bit, and my thoughts turned to movies. I really had the feeling as I read through Bill C-4 that I was being shown an old movie—I am trying to refrain from saying a really bad one—in which I had played a role. I began to imagine the titles I could give to it.

If it were a French film, we could call it Rebelote. If it were an American film, we could call it The Empire Strikes Back. I must admit I spent a few moments imagining certain members of the party across the way wearing the emperor's costume or dressed as Darth Vader. I will not name them, but I will leave it up to my colleagues to picture them, given that Halloween is this week.

After these few amusing moments I allowed myself, I came back to more serious things and thought I would perhaps begin my speech with a reference to the words of the anti-slavery Republican President Abraham Lincoln, who defined democracy in the following way:

Democracy is government of the people, by the people, for the people.

That is quite simple, but quite concrete. I will not analyze this wonderful definition in detail, but the more time goes by under the Conservative regime, the more certain I become that our country is straying dangerously far from that democratic ideal.

When day after day I see how the members of this government, the Prime Minister's Office and the Prime Minister himself seem mired in expense scandals, questionable deals made behind Canadians' backs, the silencing of dissident voices and the introduction of measures that are so complex that people feel their basic rights are being breached, I sincerely worry about the very future of our parliamentary system.

For the fourth time in two and a half years, this government is trying to circumvent parliamentary and public oversight. As the saying goes, just the once will not hurt, but four times in two and a half years means it is becoming a habit for this government.

Canadians deserve better than a Conservative omnibus bill that again hurts Canadian families by increasing the cost of living and that creates very few or no jobs when all is said and done. This bill is very big. Its 300-odd pages cover 70 acts, and we have only a few days or a few weeks, to study such a bill. The entire package will very likely be studied by the Standing Committee on Finance, which must really have significant expertise in appointing Supreme Court justices, employment insurance and immigration. The committee members are exceedingly multi-talented.

I often wonder what I am doing in the House, if not fighting for democracy. These bills are so huge that it becomes very difficult to properly analyze and fully understand them. They usually contain an alarming number of wide-ranging measures intended to hide other controversial ones, such as the measures attacking Canada's public service.

For months now, the government's methods and attitude when it comes to employment insurance matters have been symptomatic of the Conservative ministers' inability to implement a policy and measures to move the country forward. These same ministers are being given more and more power with each omnibus bill.

The democratic process that is based on dialogue and collaboration was so violated that the reform turned into a hatchet job. Everywhere I go, Canadians feel attacked, deeply hurt and, worse than anything, poorer. When people feel poorer, it is because they can see it when they manage their weekly budget.

This is why we as NDP members are categorically opposed to this bill. The reasons are many, but I am going to focus on several points that deal specifically with employment insurance.

The NDP has opposed this reform from the outset. After months of consultation in the field, we came to the obvious conclusion that employment insurance reform is an economic failure and it has to be stopped as quickly as possible.

Curiously, in the provinces most affected by the reform, it is the provincial governments that now have to work to assess the disastrous consequences it brings. That is co-operation for you.

It does not make any sense. It is disrespectful for a federal government to refuse to work with its partners in other levels of government, or with practically all the members of this House. Even inside the federal government, voices are being raised to decry the way in which the government is imposing its ideology on such a sensitive issue.

I have given up counting the times when federal officials, who have always worked to serve their fellow Canadians, have shown their distress and their incomprehension at the authoritarian and brutal methods with which they are required to process claimants' files.

Unfortunately, these are not just files that have to be processed with profit-making quotas, probably. These are families that need help. That is the approach that the public service used to have. It is about supporting communities and stimulating the economy.

Bill C-4 follows the same path as the three previous omnibus bills. I am talking about Bills C-38, C-45 and C-60. Now Bill C-4 is amending 70 pieces of legislation and adding two completely new acts. I hope for the next time that this is enough. It also includes such measures as the one to abolish the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board.

To be specific, Bill C-4 abolishes the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board and gives the Minister of Finance the power to manipulate rate-setting. Yet another power gathered unto the bosom of a minister. What does the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board do, or what is it supposed to do? Well, surprise, surprise, the answers in the bill are quite vague. We might say that there are none.

When the Conservatives set up the Employment Insurance Financing Board in 2008, we might have thought that they were headed in the right direction. We heard it said repeatedly in the House that this was probably a step in the right direction. However, one step forward, two steps back—that is what we have become used to with them. We thought that it might be the very tool to prevent successive governments from stealing employment insurance funds to eliminate other deficits. We expected the board to really prevent another misappropriation of that fund such as we saw under the Chrétien and Martin governments.

At that time, tens of billions of dollars in worker and employer premiums were simply stolen by the government. However, when it comes to the Conservatives, appearances can be deceiving and should never be trusted. The board remained a good intention, but in actual fact it is an empty shell, an institution without a soul, without powers and without purpose.

Let us go a bit further. The Employment Insurance Financing Board seems to bother the Conservative government. Why is this organization so bothersome? Why does it want to abolish it?

By eliminating the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board, once again the government is toying dangerously with morality. However, we feel it is essential to guarantee the protection of the premiums paid by employers and workers throughout Canada. It is a matter of social justice and fairness for all. Who among us can be sure that he or she will have a job for life and will never have to turn to employment insurance? The answer is simple—no one can.

Why continually attack those who are looking for work? Why does the government constantly attack those who are having trouble finding long-term, stable, permanent employment?

In conclusion, unemployment is of course a major concern for NDP members. We will introduce reforms to create jobs and curtail employment uncertainty everywhere in Canada as early as 2015, and even earlier.

In 2015, when we replace this tired government that is mired in scandals, we will restore a mechanism to protect the employment insurance fund so that the money that is put into it is used in the way it was intended.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It concludes its presentation by saying:

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

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

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

Navigable Waters Protection Act

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House and its Committees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today we are debating an immense omnibus motion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don River

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

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

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

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

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

Navigable Waters

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

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

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

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

The Environment

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

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

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

Navigable Waters Protection Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expansion and Conservation of Canada’s National Parks Act

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

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

The BBC describes Sable Island as being:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I look forward to these issues being addressed at committee.

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

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

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

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

Standing Committee on Finance--Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speaker Milliken was clear in his intent when he urged:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Standing Orders currently in place offer committees wide latitude to deal with bills in an inclusive and thorough manner that would balance the rights of all members.

and

…there is no doubt that any number of procedural arrangements could be developed that would ensure that the amendments that independent members wish to propose to legislation could be put in committee.

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

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

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

He then added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental Stewardship

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

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

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

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

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

Report Stage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The member spoke in another language.]

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

Mr. Speaker, before being so rudely interrupted by the weekend, I was saying that the Conservatives' latest budget would raise taxes by a whopping $3.3 billion over four years, and a number of these tax measures are included in this budget implementation act.

Bill C-60 would attack Canada's rural economy, with tax increases on credit unions. It would take more money out of small communities that are already struggling, and it would make it harder for small businesses in rural and small-town Canada to get the credit they need to grow and create jobs.

This is what David Phillips, president and CEO of Credit Union Central of Canada had to say:

The income tax increase on credit unions...is growth limiting. It deprives credit unions of income that might otherwise be used to support the growth of the credit union by building its capital base. The credit union will...have less capacity to make loans to small business, fund community economic development, and meet member needs.

It disregards the federal government's desire to support small business in local communities...

...it's really a tax on growth.

It is a tax on growth in rural and small-town Canada.

Garth Manness, the CEO of Credit Union Central of Manitoba, said:

...it is no exaggeration to say that some...may begin to question the future viability of credit unions in many communities in rural Canada. Not only could people be left without access to a nearby financial institution, [but] valuable and stable jobs at the credit unions could be lost.

Many of Canada's smaller rural communities face persistently higher unemployment rates and a rapidly aging population as younger workers move to cities for stable jobs. It is illogical for the Conservatives to go ahead with this tax hike on credit unions and diminish an already-limited source of investment in these rural and small-town communities.

On top of hurting small businesses that rely on credit unions, Bill C-60 would attack 750,000 Canadian small-business owners with a new tax hike on dividends. This legislation would even raise taxes on safety depot boxes. Perhaps what is most offensive is that Bill C-60 would actually punish victims of crime by adding GST or HST to health care services they need to establish their case in court.

The Canadian Psychological Association remains concerned that Bill C-60 would add GST and HST to mental health services, including psychological assessments. This is what Karen Cohen, the CEO of the Canadian Psychological Association, said when she appeared before the finance committee: “If passed without clarification or amendment, Canadians will now have to pay taxes on certain psychological services that were once exempt”. She provided a number of examples of Canadian patients who would now have to pay GST on mental health services, and went on to say:

It's important to note that this isn't a pocketbook issue for psychologists. It's not the psychologists who have to pay this tax. It's going to be hard-working Canadians who have a health need that is not met by Canada's publicly funded health care system.

A psychological assessment can cost thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket fees. The amount of money at stake for Canadian patients is not trivial.

While it may be true that the Conservatives' latest omnibus budget bill is less omni-busive than either Bill C-38 or Bill C-45, it is still deeply flawed, and we see the government now moving closure to ram this through the House of Commons without respect for Parliament and without proper scrutiny. This bill would threaten the independence of the CBC; it would raise taxes on hard-working Canadian families.

We proposed at committee some constructive amendments to address the very legitimate objections raised by Canadians during the committee's studies, but the Conservatives would not listen to reason. They have been deaf to the concerns of Canadians on this, and I expect Canadians will return the favour to the Conservatives in the next federal election.

Standing Committee on Finance

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in part to add to my submissions of yesterday and in part to respond to the submissions of the hon. House leader of the official opposition and others today.

As I said yesterday, there is a key understanding around here that our committees are the masters of their own proceedings. This is articulated in our procedural literature, such as page 1,047 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition. One portion says:

The concept refers to the freedom committees normally have to organize their work as they see fit and the option they have of defining, on their own, certain rules of procedure that facilitate their proceedings.

On the next page, we see that:

....committees may adopt procedural rules to govern their proceedings, but only to the extent the House does not prescribe anything specific.

As I said, the notion that committees are masters of their own process is true and is often referred to you, Mr. Speaker, when people attempt to appeal decisions that occur in committee to this chamber, which you quite rightly point out is something for those committees.

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley claimed yesterday that a process whereby a motion is deemed moved was some new invention. It is not. In point of fact, this same mechanism was adopted by the status of women committee on April 23 in relation to Bill S-2, family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act. There were no report stage amendments when we took up that bill on Monday.

Motions deemed moved are also contemplated in our Standing Orders. There we are not talking about committees, where we have more relaxed rules but rather in the more stringent environment of rules in this chamber. Taking a look at our rule book, I see that Standing Orders 7(1.1) and 8(2) provide that the appointments of the Speaker's three fellow chair occupants are all made on motions which are deemed to have been moved.

I have been here every night at midnight or later when the government orders finish. At the start of every night's late show, the Chair reads out the formula:

Pursuant to Standing Order 38 a motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been moved and seconded.

I could list off a number of other Standing Orders where motions are deemed to have been moved, but I think I have made my point. There is nothing novel or new about it. It is an accepted practice of this House and it is done often.

Going back to committee procedures more specifically, let me quote an excerpt from O'Brien and Bosc, which was not tendered yesterday. Page 1,018 says:

Committees often adopt sessional orders that govern the granting of the right to speak in cases where witnesses are to be questioned. Consequently, it is rare that a non-member is able to participate in such proceedings. Non-members are occasionally given the right to speak, however, following a decision by a majority of the members present or by unanimous consent.

It was exactly such a majority vote to enable participation by the independent members of Parliament that the committee took on May 7.

Turning to Beauschene's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition, citation 760(3) reads:

The Speaker has ruled on many occasions that it is not competent for the Speaker to exercise procedural control over the committees. Committees are and must remain masters of their own procedure.

I referenced that earlier.

Citation 762 meanwhile provides that:

Proceedings in the committees are more relaxed in nature than those in the House as the requirements which must be observed in the Chamber are not so strictly enforced when Members sit as committees.

At page 1030 of O'Brien and Bosc, there is a review of cases where committees have allowed even non-parliamentarians to participate in committee deliberations. Citation 771 of Beauschene's covers the same ground.

As I said yesterday, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley sought to relitigate the issue addressed by your November 29, 2012 ruling, at pages 12,609 and 12,610 of Debates.

As the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands reminded us this morning, Speakers' rulings are not actually subject to appeal.

In that ruling, Mr. Speaker, you said the finance committee's invitation to other committees to submit suggested amendments to Bill C-45, an invitation which was renewed to some committees for Bill C-60 extended to independent members of Parliament the following:

....it is true that committee practice is of considerable flexibility and fluidity. This is acknowledged by the opposition House leader....

That is the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

....himself who spoke of the need for committees to respect clear and distinct limits but declared to that, “when work is assigned to it by the House, it is largely up to the committee to decide how and when to tackle it”.

Your ruling continues:

It should be noted that in the present case, even though other committees were invited to suggest amendments, it is the finance committee itself that chose to do so. It also decided how to deal with any suggested amendments and it retained the ability to decide whether or not to adopt any such amendments.

Of course these words carry weight as rulings from the Chair and not, as the hon. NDP House leader described them yesterday, “some convenient article”. Nothing changed between Bill C-45 and Bill C-60, except for the finance committee's generous invitation, which was broadened to include members of Parliament who do not sit on the standing committee of the House .

Yesterday the House leader for the official opposition quoted page 775 of O'Brien and Bosc, which pertains to rulings on inadmissible amendments made by committees, that is to say, for example, amendments which go beyond the scope of a bill.

Mr. Speaker Milliken's ruling of February 27, 2007, which was quoted yesterday, was on that point. What is important to note is that the subject amendments would also have been inadmissible at report stage because they went beyond the principle adopted at second reading.

I now want to turn to two comments made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North yesterday. In his remarks, he stated, “We have to be very careful when we look at changing rules”.

We are not changing the rules here. The finance committee looked at creative ways within our existing rules, and did so on your invitation, I might add, of maximizing the input of all corners of this House in its work on the government's important budget legislation. The committee should be commended for responding to that invitation. He also stated that the Liberal Party opposed this matter.

Yesterday, I quoted the Liberal finance critic's comments at Tuesday's committee meeting on clause-by-clause study. A further look at the evidence of the May 7 meeting, where the invitation was adopted by the finance committee, would show, at page 20, that the hon. member for Kings—Hants had proposed an amendment to delete paragraphs (d) to (g) of the motion. The invitation to the independent MPs is not found in those paragraphs that he proposed to delete. It is found in paragraph (c). Therefore, his amendment would have actually preserved the invitation to the independents. That is what I was speaking of as my understanding of the position of the Liberal Party.

I quite reasonably concluded that the Liberal finance critic's words and actions at the committee spoke as the substantive position of the third party at that committee and here in the House.

Having now augmented my case that the proceedings in the finance committee are in order, I want to turn to the consequences of those proceedings.

The hon. members for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour and Saanich—Gulf Islands forwarded three amendments and 11 amendments respectively to the finance committee for its consideration. As we heard this morning, interventions in support of their amendments were allowed during the finance committee's clause-by-clause study in the total amount of time roughly proportionate to the number of amendments they each put forward.

It is important that we all understand that they were not just invited to submit amendments. It is important to note, in the context of the arguments that were made by them in the House, that they were also afforded an opportunity to participate at the committee. They were not to participate as full members of the committee, but to speak, to explain the nature of the amendments and to make their case. That is an extraordinary step forward. It is an advance. It shows that they were given more than just an opportunity, as was suggested, to submit amendments that someone else then proposed. They had an opportunity to explain their positions on why those amendments were of merit. This is indeed meaningful participation. It allows them to explain their position on the merits and to participate in the process to get their point of view heard.

Yesterday, I quoted from your December 12, 2012 ruling on report stage practices. I underscored your observation that there was “wide latitude” for committees. I should add that you did not say that the House had wide latitude to amend the Standing Orders. The committee's wide latitude already exists.

As I said yesterday, the generous process struck by the finance committee, I would submit, is four-square within your ruling and would serve as a model for that “satisfactory mechanism” that your ruling cited and your constructive challenge to the creativity found among the members of the House that your ruling invited.

Under this satisfactory mechanism, Mr. Speaker, it is critical to point out that the independents are not disadvantaged in relation to any other member. This is a critically important point to understand. Their right to give notice of report stage motions remains unfettered. What it does, sir, is allow you an opportunity to apply a consistent standard across the board in your selection of report stage motions, whether they are proposed by a Conservative, New Democrat, Liberal, Bloc, Green or an independent.

By virtue of the opportunity to participate and present amendments at committee, to have them heard, they are now, as independent members of this House, put on an equal footing with every other member of this House. They can propose report stage amendments. You, of course, select them in accordance with the rules, but it is achieving that equality of participation and fairness in which no individual member of this House is either advantaged or disadvantaged in accordance with our rules.

The selection criteria are set out in the note attached to Standing Order 76.(5), which provides that, “The Speaker will normally only select motions that were not or could not be presented in committee”.

That was never intended as a loophole to give to certain members of this House an extra right. However, we, through circumstances in your previous ruling, saw what one of the intended consequences of that was, and hence, you provided the invitation that it could be remedied by an effort at the committee to allow independent members to submit amendments to make their views heard at the committee stage. That is what the finance committee did.

The finance committee's mechanism, which I submit is consistent with your earlier ruling, is more than consistent, and it responds to your invitation. It enables the amendments of the independent members to be presented in committee, as that note contemplates.

Moreover, I would draw your attention to a further passage from the note: “A motion, previously defeated in committee, will only be selected if the Speaker judges it to be of such exceptional significance...”.

Accordingly, I would respectfully submit that should tomorrow's notice paper contain report stage amendments appearing in the name of a member who does not sit in a recognized party's caucus, aside from those that propose to delete clauses, it should not be selected for consideration at report stage.

In closing, I would observe that today's notice paper has four notices from the leader of the Green Party of motions to delete certain clauses of Bill C-60. In her submission to you this morning she said, and I quote from the blues, “As a matter of practical reality, the only way to have a speaking opportunity...is to have amendments tabled at report stage.”

Perhaps the answer here lies in the last sentence of Standing Order 76.1(5). “If an amendment has been selected that has been submitted by more than one Member, the Speaker, after consultation, shall designate which Member shall propose it.”

Although other members got identical notices in sooner, perhaps the balanced approach here is to call one of those motions in her name so that she can give a speech and participate in report stage, as she seeks to. Such a creative approach could well complement the finance committee's mechanism to allow independents a chance to get their views expressed in the House without creating yet more voting marathons. The exercise of this discretion could well eliminate the farcical scenes outside the offices of journals Branch last year in which New Democrats and Liberals treated us to camp-out expeditions to get their notices in first.

I would also point out that the Bloc has several deletion motions on notice as well. The same rule would apply, although I understand that some of those deletion motions stand only in their name, which would also satisfy the opportunity of ensuring they did get the ability to speak here at report stage that they seek. This, of course, would answer the concern or objection that is raised there.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, I think what you see here is a good-faith effort by the folks on the finance committee to respond to an invitation you provided, to improve the process and to enhance the rights of the independent members of this House. What we are proposing to you here is a further remedy that is wholly within your power and your ability right now to address what other additional deficiencies they fear they may encounter at report stage barring their ability to participate. This would ensure their ability to participate without any of those other adverse consequences that we have seen in the past.

I think it is a good model of the way in which, when we head into uncharted waters, you can, through your rulings, and through constructive dialogue with the committees of this House and the members of this House, evolve the rules in a fashion that works in the way you want it to, and that is to protect, in this case, the rights of the independent members of Parliament.

I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that if you were to submit, and accept the arguments of the House leader of the official opposition, exactly the opposite would occur. You would be rejecting a process that was designed in good faith to provide those independent members an opportunity to participate in committee, and saying to reject the very invitation that you made and the suggestions you made for improvement.

Should you find favour with that perspective, you will not see an advance for the defence of the rights of independent members of Parliament here; you will in fact see them constrained and straitjacketed, no longer able to participate in the committee. For there will, of course, be no reason for the committee to exercise such an approach to invite their participation because under the rules of this House, they do not sit as members of the committees; that is a long-standing practice of this House.

I could ascribe motive and say that we know that the New Democrats do not want to see the Green Party or the Bloc Québécois members, who represent their rivals electorally regionally, have this additional profile and ability to participate. Perhaps that is their motive, I do not know.

However, all I know is that what we have here is a good faith effort by a committee. To respond to your invitation, Mr. Speaker, a set of constructive solutions will advance the dialogue, help us solve these problems and make this House a more functional place that will not be held in disrepute by the public, but rather will be seen to be focused on working, debating the important issues of the day, getting the work done and allowing the votes and decisions to be taken here that people send us to make.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. House leader of the official opposition for raising this point of order yesterday, objecting to the unusual procedures that were accepted within the Standing Committee on Finance, in relation to the clause-by-clause treatment of Bill C-60, the 2013 omnibus budget bill.

Prior to his point of order, I was struggling with a dilemma: I was certain there was an effort to undermine my rights as an individual member of Parliament and yet there had been no formal challenge. I was not sure how to approach this, Mr. Speaker, and to put before you the ways in which I found that procedure unacceptable. I really very much appreciate that the official opposition saw fit to raise its concerns that those procedures and the procedures adopted--novel procedures, mind you--before the Standing Committee on Finance did not comport to parliamentary rules and practice and went beyond the mandate of the committee.

I agree with all the points made by the hon. House leader of the official opposition and by the member for Winnipeg North, on behalf of the Liberal Party.

Before getting down to the particulars of the current situation, I wish to review some fundamental principles related to the matter before you, Mr. Speaker.

In essence, what you are asked to adjudicate here is an effort by a powerful government party with the majority of seats in this place to eliminate what few rights exist to influence legislation in the hands of only eight members of Parliament belonging to two recognized national parties, myself, on behalf of the Green Party, and members here for the Bloc Québécois, plus two members currently sitting as independents.

Within this group, the government party's efforts are aimed only at the Green Party and the Bloc Québécois. We are the only members to have submitted amendments at report stage in the 41st Parliament.

The appropriate balance between the majority and the minority in proceedings of the House is, as Speaker Milliken noted, a fundamental issue.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be providing the written copy of this presentation to you so that I will not have to read out loud all the citations.

The following passage is very apt. Although Speaker Milliken was dealing with a situation with a minority Parliament, the issues before him of balancing the rights of the minority and the majority are the same. I quote from Speaker Milliken's ruling of March 29, 2007:

At the present time, the chair occupants, like our counterparts in House committees, daily face the challenge of dealing with the pressures of a minority government, but neither the political realities of the moment nor the sheer force of numbers should force us to set aside the values inherent in the parliamentary conventions and procedures by which we govern our deliberations.

Continuing:

Unlike the situation faced by committee chairs, a Speaker's decision is not subject to appeal. All the more reason then for the Chair to exercise its awesome responsibility carefully and to ensure that the House does not, in the heat of the moment, veer dangerously off course.

The Speaker must remain ever mindful of the first principles of our great parliamentary tradition, principles best described by John George Bourinot, Clerk of this House from 1890 to 1902, who described these principles thus:

To protect the minority and restrain the improvidence and tyranny of the majority, to secure the transaction of public business in a decent and orderly manner, to enable every member to express his opinions within those limits necessary to preserve decorum and prevent an unnecessary waste of time, to give full opportunity for the consideration of every measure, and to prevent any legislative action being taken heedlessly and upon sudden impulse.

As I noted yesterday, in particular, in your ruling related to the member for Langley's question of privilege, you said:

...[an] unquestionable duty of the Speaker [is] to act as the guardian of the rights and privileges of members and of the House as an institution.

And you cited, with approval, these words from former speaker Fraser:

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

The last quote is from your ruling of December 12, 2012, which bears directly on the matter at hand. In that ruling, Mr. Speaker, you dealt with an objection raised by the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons to, inter alia, my presentation of amendments at report stage. The hon. government House leader presented a proposal that all my amendments at report stage should be grouped and one motion selected as a “test motion”, and only if the test motion was adopted would any of the other amendments be put to the House.

Your ruling was clear, Mr. Speaker. You cited House of Commons Procedure and Practice at page 250, which states:

[I]t remains true that parliamentary procedure is intended to ensure that there is a balance between the government's need to get its business through the House, and the opposition's responsibility to debate that business without completely immobilizing the proceedings of the House.

And you added:

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

You ruled then, Mr. Speaker, that my amendments at report stage on Bill C-45 could stand and be put to a vote in the House. You also set out some circumstances that would provide a potential procedure to provide me and other members in my position with a fair and satisfactory alternative to amendments at report stage.

In my view, the government House leader is now attempting to do indirectly that which he could not do directly. It puts me in mind of the finding of Mr. Justice Dickson in that landmark Supreme Court case of Amax Potash, in which Mr. Dickson said:

To allow moneys collected under compulsion, pursuant to an ultra vires statute, to be retained would be tantamount to allowing the provincial Legislature to do indirectly what it could not do directly, and by covert means to impose illegal burdens.

I again underline that as the hon. House leader of the official opposition has put before us, the actions of the finance committee were ultra vires, and the whole effort here is to do indirectly what it could not do directly. I am speaking of the Conservative Party's efforts to suppress the rights of minority members.

It offends principles of fairness to use the superior clout and power of a majority government to crush the few procedures found within our rules and traditions to which I, as an individual member, have a right to recourse. It is clear that the effort being made by the finance committee on Bill C-60 is a continuation of the strategy-by-stealth of the government House leader's to foreclose the democratic rights of members, which was attempted in November of last year.

For the remainder of my argument, I would like to canvass two areas of facts that are relevant to the specifics of the question before you, Mr. Speaker. First, was the procedure adopted by the finance committee in conformity with your ruling of December 12, 2012? Second, have the amendments I have put forward in the 41st Parliament offended the rules by failing the tests of “repetition, frivolity, vexatiousness and unnecessary prolongation of report stage”?

Dealing with the second point first, I have moved amendments at report stage on the following bills, and I will state how many amendments per bill: Bill C-10, 36 amendments; Bill C-11, 11 amendments; Bill C-13, one amendment; Bill C-18, three amendments; Bill C-19, three amendments; Bill C-31, 23 amendments; Bill C-316, five amendments; Bill C-38, 320 amendments; Bill C-37, one amendment; Bill C-43, 21 amendments; and Bill C-45, 82 amendments.

What is immediately obvious is that the number of my amendments was directly proportionate to the legislation proposed by the government. Only on the two omnibus budget bills, Bill C-45 and Bill C-38, and the omnibus crime bill, Bill C-10, did I propose a relatively large number of amendments. There were many amendments, because the omnibus bills involved changes to multiple laws in a dramatic and transformative fashion. The amendments I proposed were all serious; none were frivolous. They were not of the kind, for example, put forward by the opposition of the day on the Nisga'a treaty, in which multiple amendments were mere changes of punctuation with the goal being slowing passage of the Nisga'a treaty.

The amendments I have put forward have even gained favourable commentary from some government members. On Bill C-31, the hon. Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism said, “I appreciate the member's evident concern”, speaking of me as the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, “and the fact that she takes the deliberative legislative process very seriously”.

On Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act, the hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages said, “I compliment her for her substantive approach to this legislation”.

On Bill C-43, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism stated:

I commend the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her constant due diligence. I know it is a particular challenge to effectively be an independent member and yet participate in an informed way in debates on virtually all bills in the House. We all admire her for that even if I do not agree with the substance of her intervention here.

In summary, the amendments I have put forward in the 41st Parliament have never been frivolous. Were they designed to slow passage? Not at all. Even on the day we began the marathon session of votes on the amendments to Bill C-38, I approached the Prime Minister personally and asked if any compromise were possible. I told him I would be at his disposal, that if one or two amendments might pass, perhaps the rest could be withdrawn, and that I was open to suggestion.

My goal throughout was serious and grounded in principle. My constituents care about these issues and these bills. I am working tirelessly in their interest. I have never engaged in preparing and presenting amendments for the sake of, as the government House leader has suggested, political games or delay for the sake of delay.

Having worked in the Mulroney government and in public policy work in Ottawa dealing with federal governments, federal ministers and federal laws since 1978, I have personal experience with what used to be the normal approach to legislating in the Parliament of Canada. This particular administration is the only one in our history to enforce rigid discipline on its members in legislative committees. It is the first administration in Canadian history to resist any changes in its legislative proposals from first reading to royal assent. Even the errors that are discovered prior to passage are protected from amendment until subsequent bills correct earlier drafting errors.

Worsening this abuse of democratic process, virtually every bill in the 41st Parliament has been subject to time allocation. If time allocation were not applied, in the normal round of debates, eventually members in my situation, who are seen as independent for my rights and privileges, although I sit here as a Green Party member, would be recognized and would participate in the debates. However, due to time allocation, there is never an opportunity to speak at second reading, report stage or third reading. With time allocation, there is never an opportunity for members in my position to make a speech unless another party cedes a speaking slot.

As a matter of practical reality, the only way to have a speaking opportunity in such time-constrained circumstances is to have amendments tabled at report stage. This approach of the current Conservative administration of rejecting any and all amendments, while simultaneously abbreviating debate opportunities, is a perversion of Westminster parliamentary tradition. It is a new and hyper-partisan approach to the legislative process.

As a member of Parliament, I believe it is my duty to work to resist this new, contemptuous approach to legislating. The ability to table amendments at report stage and to offer the entire House an opportunity to improve bills before third reading is even more critical when the legislative committee process has ceased to function as it did in all the time of all the speakers before you.

Now I turn to the question, Mr. Speaker, of how the finance committee applied the suggestions contained in your ruling of December 12, 2012. I note that the chair of the finance committee is never anything but personally fair, and I mean nothing personal against all members of the finance committee. I assume that this entire stratagem emerged elsewhere than from the members of the finance committee themselves.

I note that you suggested, Mr. Speaker, that there are “opportunities and mechanisms that are at the House's disposal to resolve these issues to the satisfaction of all members” in a “manner that would balance the rights of all members” and that “...members need only to remember that there are several precedents where independent members were made members of standing committees”. Those are all quotes from your ruling in December.

Finally, you suggested this:

Were a satisfactory mechanism found that would afford independent members an opportunity to move motions to move bills in committee, the Chair has no doubt that its report stage selection process would adapt to the new reality.

From these comments it is clear that your direction suggests that an effort might be made to engage members with rights of independents to enter into a discussion about how arrangements could be reached that would be, in fact, satisfactory. To be “to the satisfaction of all members”, your ruling implicitly requires that the suggested opportunities and mechanisms be discussed and accepted by all concerned. Further, you suggested that temporary membership was possible and that members should be able to “move motions”.

None of that occurred. I am attaching a written copy of all the correspondence between me and the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, which I will provide to the table. As you will see, there was no discussion or offer of co-operation. The “invitation” contained in a letter of May 7, 2013 left no room for discussion. The attached motion of the committee was supported only by the Conservative members of the finance committee but not by the official opposition or the Liberal Party members.

The letter, and particularly the motion itself, had the tone of a unilateral ultimatum. My response was to ask for temporary committee membership for the duration of clause-by-clause review. This request was rejected in the letter of May 24, 2013.

As the various sections of Bill C-60 had been distributed among several committees, I attempted to attend all the hearings relative to my amendments. However, committees were meeting at the same time in different locations throughout the parliamentary precinct making it impossible to get to each one of them. I did attend meetings of the industry, finance and the foreign affairs committees prior to clause-by-clause study. I asked for permission to ask witnesses questions and was denied in the finance and foreign affairs committees. I was allowed a three-minute opportunity to pose questions in the industry committee. To be blunt, my opportunities were not close to equivalent to the members of those committees.

On Monday, May 27, 2013 as requested by the finance committee, I complied with the committee and attempted to co-operate. I submitted my amendments and attended clause-by-clause study throughout the meeting of the committee on Tuesday, May 28. I asked for time to present my amendments. There were 11 in total. I was given half as much time as my colleague from the Bloc Québécois. I was allowed one minute per amendment. He was allowed two minutes per amendment. I have attached copies of the Hansard from all of these discussions to abbreviate the recitation of the facts.

I prefaced my presentation of amendments with a statement that I had not asked for this opportunity nor invitation and that while I was attempting to co-operate, it was without prejudice to my rights to submit amendments at report stage. Each time I was given the floor for 60 seconds, I repeated that my participation was without prejudice to my rights to present amendments at report stage, when I had the right to move my own amendments, speak to my own amendments, and answer questions about my amendments. At report stage, I have the right to vote on my amendments.

I also supported the point made by the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park that inviting independent members to committee, in her words, “does not conform with parliamentary procedure in that only the House of Commons can appoint committee members”.

I noted that I did not have an equal opportunity to present my amendments. This observation was compounded as we went through clause-by-clause study.

On two occasions, members of the committee suggested amendments to my amendments. I was not allowed to comment on those suggestions. On one occasion, a member of the government benches disagreed with a point I made, but I was not allowed to reply. On another occasion, the NDP members misunderstood the impact of my amendment, but I was not allowed to explain. I was not allowed to move my amendments. The motions were deemed moved. I was not allowed to vote on my amendments. As noted, I was not allowed even the ability to participate in discussions about my amendments.

There is no way the word “satisfactory” can be so twisted of meaning as to apply to the set of circumstances to which I was required to submit. It is a principle of fairness and natural justice that an opportunity that cannot be used is no opportunity at all.

When one considers the circumstances in which speakers have ruled that members did not have an adequate opportunity to submit their amendments, it is clear that this imposed process before the Standing Committee on Finance falls far short of the mark.

For example, in 2001, Speaker Milliken ruled that where a member was on two committees and had difficulty getting to the meeting, he could move amendments at report stage. Speaker Milliken wrote that:

...because...the member maintains that he sits on two committees, both of which were seized with bills at the same time, and therefore had difficulty in moving his amendments, the Chair will give the benefit of the doubt to the member on this occasion.

In a situation where a member of a recognized parliamentary party attended the clause-by-clause consideration at the committee but was not an official member of the committee, Speaker Milliken allowed that member's amendments to be presented at report stage. He noted:

Of course, the Chair recognizes that our parliamentary system is party driven and the positions of the parties are brought forward to committees through its officially designated members. The Chair also recognizes that some members may want to act on their own.

Underscoring this, what an example: a member of a recognized party with rights to participate in standing committees chose to be in the meetings, in clause-by-clause study, and could have handed that member's amendments to another member of his party and ask that they be submitted, but the Speaker of the House supported the right of that member to amendments at report stage because he was not a committee member. I was a long, long way from the rights of that member of a recognized political party sitting in that committee back in 2003 when Speaker Milliken allowed that member's amendments at report stage.

The right of a member to actually move the amendments at committee cannot be perverted through the expedient measure, imposed by a majority party, of demanding all amendments of an independent member be submitted, denying that member the right to move the amendment, speak to the amendment, other than in an inadequate perfunctory fashion, debate or defend the amendment, giving that member no opportunity to speak to other amendments and denying the member any chance to vote on his or her motion.

There may well be some way to accommodate members of Parliament in my position, but clearly, this experiment on Bill C-60 at clause-by-clause consideration in the finance committee was not acceptable. To accept it now, and disallow rights of members of Parliament in the position of independents to submit amendments at report stage, will be to create a precedent that fundamentally abuses our foundational principles of Westminster parliamentary democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I urge you to find in favour of the point of order put forward by the hon. House leader for the official opposition and to set aside the treatment of me and the member from the Bloc Québécois and allow us to submit amendments, move amendments, debate our amendments and vote on them on Bill C-60 at report stage.

Fair Rail Freight Service Act

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

This is actually quite insulting, and most of all, undemocratic. The Conservatives are forcing us to sit until midnight from Monday to Thursday, and yet this makes the 37th time we have a time allocation motion. Talk about mixed messages.

We want to discuss the issues, but the government limits the time for debate again and again. In addition, these are badly thought-out bills riddled with flaws. I will list them a little later in my speech.

This has been an ongoing trend with the Conservatives since they came into office. I am specifically thinking of omnibus Bills C-38, C-45 and C-60.

I speak of the Conservatives' incompetence because they are bringing forward bills full of flaws and weaknesses. They are not holding proper consultations. In committee, recommendations from many of the witnesses are rejected out of hand, as are the amendments proposed by the NDP, or anyone else for that matter.

They realized that Bill C-38 was flawed. Then they made hasty additions to Bill C-45 to rectify the other bill they had just introduced.

This makes no sense at all. It lacks credibility. It shows a lack of respect for the democratic process, for the people who were consulted and for those who were not. It shows contempt for the elected officials who serve the people who rely on them to make decisions. We cannot make good decisions because we cannot have a debate and carefully examine everything that should be considered. So yes, it is insulting and an outrage.

The official opposition will support Bill C-52 because it is, finally, a first attempt at establishing the right to service agreements between rail companies and shippers.

This is the first step that shippers have been waiting for for decades. It also establishes an arbitration process, led by the Canadian Transportation Agency, to impose penalties in the event negotiations fail and for violations of arbitration decisions. There are therefore constructive, positive elements, but there are also a number of elements that shippers and the official opposition were calling for but that were rejected.

Four NDP members proposed amendments, based on recommendations from shippers. Those members were the transport critic, the member for Trinity—Spadina; the deputy critic, the member for Trois-Rivières; the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and the member for York South—Weston.

What were those amendments and recommendations? I will explain them. They were not that complicated, and they would have really helped shippers.

We recommended including details about the service agreements. It seems to me that service agreements should, at the very least, be signed and contain details. I do not understand why that was rejected. We asked that the term “operational” be deleted because it would limit the ability to negotiate and arbitrate service agreements. Again, that seems to go without saying. It does not make much sense to limit the measure we are trying to implement. We wanted to include a dispute resolution mechanism in service agreements for breach of contract. We also asked to limit the ability of railway companies to levy penalties and charges that are not in the service agreement.

The rates are already exorbitant and the railway companies are abusing their power. Since there are only two main companies, there is a quasi-monopoly when it comes to shipping freight. The rates being charged to the shippers are too high. They prevent the entrepreneurs and the shippers from being competitive on the international market. We cannot even limit the capacity of the rail carriers to charge penalties that are not included in the service agreement. Nothing good will come of that either.

We proposed limiting arbitration when service agreement negotiations break off and issues are raised by the shipper. The last amendment sought to limit the capacity of rail carriers to raise network-related problems during arbitration.

All these amendments could have improved Bill C-52, but they were not considered. They were completely rejected.

Again, we are here to let the House know that people are not happy about this.The bill has other flaws. What about lost revenue. The Conservatives claim they want to strengthen the economy, but they are diminishing the capacity of the regions to prop up their regional economy, given that the affected sectors are the farming, forestry, mining, manufacturing and natural resources sectors. Most of these sectors are in remote regions.

The Conservatives are contradicting themselves again. They would have us believe that their position and their bills are best, but then they sabotage everything they are trying to do by not taking the time to do proper research. They do not take the time to consult the experts in the areas affected by their bills. That is part of the incompetence that we are talking about here.

Shippers are currently paying the price of service disruptions, damage to their crops and service delays by railways. What is more, they have no other option. As many of my colleagues have said, 70% of surface goods are moved by rail in Canada, and 80% of these shippers are not satisfied with the service they received. That is serious. That means that service is considered to be poor in four out of five cases.

That is why these types of agreements needed to be made after all these years. However, now that they are finally being made, they are more negative than positive. The money from the $100,000 penalties imposed on railway companies under this bill is not used to compensate shippers. Instead, it goes to the federal government. It really should be given to shippers who create jobs and who have to pay late fees and fees for services that the railways failed to provide.

This money is being sent to the wrong place. What is more, these penalties do not really act as a deterrent since we know that companies such as CN are making $2.7 billion in profit a year.

In short, we are going to allow this bill to move forward, but it has many shortcomings. We must listen to experts on this.

Standing Committee on Finance

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a very specific point of order with regard to Bill C-60, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, and the work that was done by the committees that were studying this bill, particularly the finance committee, which invoked some measures we believe are not in order and fell well outside of its mandate.

As some context for those Canadians who are not familiar with Bill C-60, this is another piece of omnibus legislation. We rose earlier on similar points of order with respect to how the bill was handled.

In its nature, being an omnibus bill under the current government's watch, with the expansion of omnibus legislation to include so many different matters, the government has faced a difficulty of its own making in that it is not purely a financial bill and it is not simply a bill to implement the budget; it would do much more. While it has an anti-democratic nature and tone for us, in various ways we have struggled with the ability for members of Parliament to properly study and amend legislation that is so broad.

I wish that you would review the motion adopted by the standing committee on May 7, as well as the proceedings that resulted from this specific motion, and that you rule to determine whether these proceedings were in order or not and whether the committee overstepped its authority when adopting this particular motion. I will refer in detail to what the motion accomplished and how it fell outside of the mandate of the committee.

We raised a very similar point of order, if you will remember, around Bill C-45. That was the second omnibus bill that followed on Bill C-38. We had deep concerns about the fact that the Standing Committee on Finance, during its consideration of that massive omnibus bill, went beyond its mandate and usurped the authority of the House when it invited other standing committees to study particular sections of Bill C-45. On their own mandate they started to carve the bill up and send it out. It then allowed these committees that were studying the bill to move amendments and then saw it as if those amendments had been moved by members of the finance committee.

We argued at the time that this went beyond the mandate and the reference from the House, from you as the Speaker.

A similar argument could be made about Bill C-60. It was introduced on April 29.

On May 7, after the government used time allocation to shut down the debate once again on discussions at second reading, it ended with the passage of the following motion, which stated:

...that Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to [the Standing Committee on Finance].

Hansard on that day of May 7 specifically quotes you as saying:

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

It is pro forma and it is how bills are referred to the committee.

The committee acted outside of its powers and authority, those powers conferred on it by this House, when it adopted a motion on that very same day asking other committees to study sections of the bill, namely the standing committees on industry, science and technology; veterans affairs; human resources, skills and development; the status of persons with disabilities; citizenship and immigration; as well as foreign affairs and international development. That is where the government sought to parse out the bill.

It is very difficult to deal with omnibus legislation that is so obviously varied that it implicates so many different committees. The government has pushed, and I would argue broken the democratic limits of our legislature, by packing so much into these individual bills. In essence it is hiding from Canadians what its agenda is as these bills then come back to the House for one single vote on so many matters. This was something that the Conservatives concerned themselves with greatly when they were in opposition. You have heard me mention many of the quotes from the Prime Minister and various ministers in his cabinet on how much they disliked this tactic when the Liberals used it. It is now a tactic that the Conservatives seem to enjoy using with much relish.

Although I believe the Standing Committee on Finance went beyond its mandate to ask these five other committees to study the bill, this is not the principal concern that I want to raise with you today.

The committee went even further this time in going beyond its mandate, by adopting a motion to allow members of Parliament who are not members of a caucus represented on the committee to file amendments to the bill. It went further by directing that any amendments suggested to the committee would be deemed to be proposed during the clause-by-clause consideration on Bill C-60, even if the member who presented the amendment was not present.

Let us take a moment with this. Out of some seeking of convenience, the committee members passed the motion at their own discretion, not by any power given to them by the House, to allow amendments that came from people who do not sit on the committee, who are not recognized parties in the House. They allowed amendments to suddenly appear and be presented as if they came from somebody on committee. This goes against three fundamental principles that we hold dear in the House.

Only the House can appoint committee members. This is well known. It is done at the beginning of every session when we constitute our committees. No committee can self-appoint members. It has to come from an order in the House.

Only committee members who have been appointed by the House can move a motion. In order to move a motion, a member must be present at the time the motion is moved. We just dealt with a piece of private member's legislation before my point of order. A seconder was missing from her particular seat. The House properly waited until that member took her seat so that she was present. Motions cannot be moved if people are not here.

The rules of committee as established by the House specifically prescribe that members of a committee are designated by the House and cannot include members of a non-recognized party. This is a practice and a procedure we have used for many years. The rules established by the House also specifically prescribe that only a member of a committee can move a motion.

According to O'Brien and Bosc's House of Commons Procedure and Practice:

Only a member of the committee, or his or her designated substitute, may move an amendment or vote on an amendment.

Standing Order No. 119 stipulates that:

Any member of the House who is not a member of a standing, special or legislative committee, may, unless the House or the committee concerned otherwise orders, take part in the public proceedings of the committee, but may not vote or move any motion, nor be part of any quorum.

The O'Brien and Bosc text, on page 1019, states:

It is the House, and the House alone, that appoints the members and associate members of its committees, as well as the members who will represent it on joint committees.

The status of member of a committee is accorded to Members of the House of Commons who belong officially to that committee. This status allows them to participate fully in their committee's proceedings: members may move motions, vote and be counted for purposes of a quorum.

The Speaker has ruled that this is a fundamental right of the House. It cannot be taken away. A committee simply cannot move a motion to take such a power away from the House. I am quoting now:

The committees themselves have no powers at all in this regard.

I would like at this point to mention your ruling, Mr. Speaker, from last December. You will recall that at the time, we moved our point of order regarding the last omnibus bill, Bill C-45, specifically with respect to the role and rights of independent members in the context of report stage.

The government House leader argued that the current process by which independent members are not allowed to present motions at committee means that at report stage of bills, a single independent member has the ability, in his words, “to hold the House hostage in a voting marathon”, as if voting were somehow connected to a hostage-taking, by submitting numerous report stage amendments.

In response, Mr. Speaker, you suggested that members may try to find ways to accommodate independent members at committee in order to allow them to present motions. You said the following:

Were a satisfactory mechanism found that would afford independent members an opportunity to move motions to move bills in committee, the Chair has no doubt that its report stage selection process would adapt to the new reality.

I understand that the motion adopted for Bill C-60 at committee was somehow a response to this ruling and an attempt by the Conservative Party to cut short the proceedings at report stage. However, I believe that the Conservatives fundamentally misinterpreted your ruling to in fact allow independent members to move motions to amend bills at committees. The Conservatives should have, and must have, sought agreement of the House to allow the members to sit on that committee. That is a power they cannot take away simply by a motion at committee. Indeed, it is from the House that committees derive this power. Committees on their own do not have absolute powers.

While committees are often quoted as being masters of their own fate, I will cite from O'Brien and Bosc at page 1047:

The concept refers to the freedom committees normally have to organize their work as they see fit and the option they have of defining, on their own, certain rules of procedure that facilitate their proceedings.

A second quote, on page 1048 of O'Brien and Bosc, states:

These freedoms are not, however, total or absolute.... committees are creatures of the House. This means that they have no independent existence and are not permitted to take action unless they have been authorized/empowered to do so by the House.

A second quote on that same page states:

...committees are free to organize their proceedings as they see fit.... committees may adopt procedural rules to govern...but only to the extent the House does not prescribe anything specific.

Members of a committee, and only members of a committee, as well as associate members when they replace those members, are able to attend the committee and thus move a motion at committee.

O'Brien and Bosc further tells us that:

Standing Orders specifically exclude a non-member from voting, moving motions or being counted for purposes of quorum.

The rules also clearly state that a member must be present for the motion. This is a fact. We have never moved away from this fact or this rule or procedure. To suddenly invent a process by which a motion can be moved but the member may be absent contravenes the basic tenets of democracy and representation. We could suddenly have votes where people just call in and speak their intentions rather than be here themselves.

Where a notice of motion has been given, the Speaker will first ensure that the Member wishes to proceed with the moving of the motion. If the sponsor of a motion chooses not to proceed (either by not being present or by being present but declining to move the motion), then the motion is not proceeded with....

This has happened many times in the House. We have seen private member's bills that members chose not to move. They either made themselves absent from the House or they remained in their seats and the motion was not moved forward. Nobody else can do it on their behalf. No one can simply come in and say, “The member intended to be here, but is not. Please allow the member's private member's bill or motion to be considered”.

There is a precedent for a Speaker overruling a committee matter, because sometimes Speakers, often, and I think for good reason, have been loath to involve themselves in committee business.

I quote from O'Brien and Bosc, page 775:

Since a committee may appeal the decision of its Chair and reverse that decision, it may happen that a committee will report a bill with amendments that were initially ruled out of order by the Chair. The admissibility of those amendments, and of any other amendments made by a committee, may therefore be challenged on procedural grounds when the House resumes its consideration of the bill at report stage. The admissibility of the amendments is then determined by the Speaker of the House, whether in response to a point of order or on his or her own initiative.

Amendments were moved with no member present who was actually intent on moving that motion. People were made members of the committee, one assumes, by a motion the committee did not have the power to designate.

For the House to now consider, at report stage, Bill C-60, with these amendments in place, is strictly out of order. It is the proper role of the Speaker of the House to intervene to say that things were done improperly and have to be done right.

In 2007, a point of order was raised in the House dealing with the admissibility of three amendments contained in a bill at report stage from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Speaker Milliken ruled two of the amendments out of order, finding that they imported into the bill concepts and terms not present in the bill and were therefore beyond the scope of the bill.

I quote from Speaker Milliken's ruling on February 27, 2007:

...the Speaker does not intervene on matters upon which committees are competent to take decisions. However, in cases where a committee has exceeded its authority, particularly in relation to bills, the Speaker has been called upon to deal with such matters after a report has been presented to the House.

That has happened here today.

In terms of amendments adopted by committees on bills, if they were judged to be inadmissible by the Speaker, those amendments would be struck from the bill as amended because the committee did not have the authority to adopt such provisions.

This means there exists a precedent for the Speaker rejecting amendments to a bill and the process by which it was there.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to rule and review the motion adopted by the standing committee on May 7, 2013, as well as the proceedings that resulted from that motion, and that you rule to determine whether these proceedings were in order and whether the committee overstepped its authority when it adopted the motion.

The House of Commons and Parliament, and democracy in general, have suffered much abuse under this tactic and use of omnibus legislation. We have presented ourselves many times in defence of the institution and the right of members to speak and the people we represent to clearly understand the legislation the government is attempting to move.

The abuse of omnibus legislation has been a decision by the government. The difficulty it is having in the way amendments are moved and the process by which a bill goes through are of its own making, and it has only itself to blame.

A committee cannot take powers the House did not give it. Simply accepting motions from members who are not part of a committee and are not present to move the motion, contravenes the basic tenets of this place. The presence and acknowledged presence of a standing member of any of these committees is required—it is a basic, fundamental requirement—for a motion to proceed. These motions were considered improperly. We ask that you rule in this matter.

Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in the House in support of Bill C-48 at third reading.

This is a rather large bill that is more than 1,000 pages long. I just want to point out that Bill C-48 looks like a mammoth omnibus bill. It is a two- or three-inch-thick brick with more than 1,000 pages.

Last year, we had the mammoth Bill C-38. Then we had the mammoth Bill C-45. Now we have Bill C-48, which is extremely large and complex. What is more, the font is quite small. It is very hard to read and very complicated.

It makes many technical changes to the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, and other legislation. This topic may seem very technical and unappealing to many people, but these changes are often necessary and can have a significant impact on the Canadian economy. The majority of the measures proposed in this bill have already been in place for many years, but the bill makes them law.

Unfortunately, the massive size of this bill shows that there is still work to be done to convert similar technical changes into legislative measures in a timely fashion. Failure to update our tax code on a regular basis makes it hard for Canadians, business people in particular, to find any clarity in our tax system. We must also look at the growing complexity of tax law and focus on the need to simplify it over time.

The more complicated the system, the more flaws it contains, and the more room there is for loopholes. When that happens, then there are bound to people who will take advantage. That is why it is important to simplify everything.

On that subject, I would like to quote the 2012 pre-budget submission from the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada:

[We] strongly believe that the key to sustained economic recovery and enhanced economic growth lies in the government’s commitment to tax reform and red tape reduction.

CGA-Canada went on to make two recommendations. First, it recommended modernizing Canada's tax system to make it simple, transparent and more efficient. Second, it proposed implementing a “sunset provision” to prevent future legislative backlogs.

The government has been very slow to legislate technical amendments. In a report tabled about four years ago, in 2009, the Auditor General at the time, Sheila Fraser, pointed out that the Department of Finance Canada had a backlog of at least 400 technical amendments that had not been enacted. Here is what her report said:

No income tax technical bill has been passed since 2001.

It is now 2013. That means that two previous governments have been asleep at the switch, and for a considerable amount of time. Today's majority government has been in power for nearly a decade, yet an income tax technical bill has not been passed. What is it doing? We do not know.

Sheila Fraser's report goes on to say:

...the government has said that an annual technical bill of routine housekeeping amendments to the Act is desirable...

Yet we know that nothing has been introduced since 2001. They are not doing what the Auditor General suggested:

...an annual technical bill of routine housekeeping amendments...has not happened. As a result, the Department of Finance Canada has a backlog of at least 400 technical amendments that have not been enacted.... If proposed technical changes are not tabled regularly, the volume of amendments becomes difficult for taxpayers, tax practitioners, and parliamentarians to absorb when they are grouped into a large package.

At one point, people said that Beta videocassettes were the future. We no longer use videocassettes. We are making technological advances. The same thing applies to taxes. It is time for us to get up to date.

Obviously, the size of this bill and the long period of time that passed between the introduction of the previous technical bill and this one show that this process still needs improvement.

On another topic, the NDP thinks that we need to combat tax avoidance and tax evasion, while preserving the integrity of our tax system. That is why we support the changes that this bill makes, particularly those aimed at reducing tax avoidance.

However, we also believe that much more needs to be done to truly address the problem of tax evasion.

According to some estimates, the Canadian tax system is losing between $5.3 billion and $7.8 billion in revenue a year to tax evasion alone. The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists recently acquired a long list of individuals from all over the world who are holding billions of dollars in tax havens. According to the consortium, approximately 450 Canadians are on that list. We are not just making this up. We need to find out where all of this money is going.

What is more, according to the information that was recently published by Statistics Canada on foreign direct investments, Canadian investments in the top 12 tax havens worldwide exceeded $170 billion, which is equivalent to 10% of Canada's GDP.

It is true that the majority Conservative government is capable of losing track of $3 billion earmarked for public safety. As a result, it may have difficulty understanding what I am saying about tax evasion. I understand since the government has trouble implementing its own budget.

One of the main reasons why wealthy Canadians and large corporations want to put their money in tax havens is to simply avoid paying their fair share of taxes. That means billions of dollars in lost tax revenue for the federal government and fewer new jobs in Canada.

The government boasts that it has announced new investments to combat tax evasion, but unfortunately, this new money totals just one-quarter of the $113 million that this government has spent since 2009 to advertise its budgets.

Furthermore, the government has made some $250 million in cuts to the Canada Revenue Agency. These cuts led to the loss of about 3,000 jobs within that department.

The government is cutting the jobs of the people who are supposed to be working on combatting tax evasion. The Conservatives want to reduce the size of government—cut the red tape, as they say—but at what cost? They do not realize that sometimes we have to rely on the people who are able to help us. I do not think the Conservatives truly understand how important it is to combat tax evasion.

In spite of the government's lack of conviction, we believe that Bill C-48 will have a positive impact and will help discourage tax evasion.

In conclusion, the sheer size of this bill shows that the government must be more responsible in managing the tax system. More specifically, the government must ensure that it periodically passes legislation on proposed tax measures. Failure to do so creates uncertainty for business people, jurists and tax experts, and makes it nearly impossible for parliamentarians to do their jobs when they are faced with bills as big as the one we have today.

I must point out how important it is to focus on compliance to guarantee the integrity of the tax system.

The NDP believes that we must eliminate tax loopholes and work harder to combat tax havens. This government is tired and it is time for a change.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Chambly—Borduas for agreeing to share his time with me. I am very grateful.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-48, which is a step any government would need to take in order to update our Income Tax Act. It is a relatively complex law. To begin, I would like to point out that I am not a tax expert or an accountant. I did study the bill, which is about 950 pages long. I did not read the whole thing because, unfortunately, I ran out of time this morning. I do understand the broad strokes of the bill, however.

As a parliamentarian, I must say that it is always disappointing to be faced with bills of such scope. I would be surprised if a single one of my colleagues has read the entire 950 pages, one by one, and knows exactly what is in this bill, unless they happen to be one of the public servants who wrote it. It is always disappointing to see such massive bills, which no average person has the time to read or reflect on. We are asked to vote on these kinds of bills, as was the case for budget implementation Bills C-38 and C-45, which were 400 pages each.

They were mammoth bills, like today's. I must say that these are important and useful measures. They have their purpose, but it is important to mention that more frequent updating could have at least made things easier for MPs. We would not have had to read 950 pages today if tax laws had been updated more frequently over the past 10 years.

The most recent technical bill of this nature dates back to 2001, and it is now 2013. As a result, some things have been dragging on for over a decade and need to be changed for the better. This bill is not flawed, but before going into details, I wanted to point out that a bill of this size is problematic for MPs and prevents them from doing their job properly.

With a 950-page bill, we need to wonder whether the government has done a good job. Why did the government wait so many years to introduce it? Why not introduce it earlier? More frequent updates would have helped. That point was raised several times in committee. I did not have the opportunity to be there, but I read the transcript.

As the member for Sherbrooke, I agree with the principle of having a clearer system and more frequent updates to allow for more effective management, particularly for businesses and individuals who do their taxes each year and must comply with fairly complicated legislation. The Income Tax Act must be one of Canada's largest pieces of legislation at hundreds of pages long.

Of course, the NDP believes that we must fight tax avoidance and tax evasion while preserving the integrity of our tax system. That is why we support the changes proposed in this bill, for they are meant to address issues that allow tax avoidance. This is not a mammoth bill like the budget implementation bills, Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, but still, it is nearly 1,000 pages long. There is a difference though. This time, these are very technical measures that we supported and that we will support again at third reading.

These changes are important. I would like to talk about the major changes, so that the viewing public can understand what they mean.

Part 1 of the bill deals with offshore investment fund property and non-resident trusts in accordance with proposals announced in budget 2010 and August 2010. These measures will ensure the taxation of Canadian residents' worldwide income from all sources.

Part 1 will therefore update the legislation in order to guarantee the integrity of the tax system and prevent tax avoidance. Of course, the NDP supports this change in order to try to keep our tax system as clear as possible. The NDP also wants to make tax avoidance impossible in any way, shape or form.

We realize that the existing legislation has some loopholes that people can use to avoid paying part of their taxes or to evade taxes in other countries. This fight will never end. People will always try to find ways to get around the law. Unfortunately, that is just how society is; some people will always try to abuse the system. As legislators, we must ensure that these people are punished or amend the legislation so that these things never happen again.

Parts 2 and 3 of the bill deal with taxation of corporations with foreign affiliates.

Part 4 deals with something important that I wanted to address as well, and that is bijuralism, an important aspect of our Canadian legal system. In Quebec we have civil law and the rest of Canada has common law. These are two different types of law. Part 4 deals with this situation that can sometimes be unclear and cause confusion.

It is therefore important in the Canadian context that these legal systems be respected in our federal laws, laws that apply to the entire country. There are differences between civil law and common law when it comes to real property, personal property and joint and several liability. The bill addresses these issues and clarifies them for individuals and businesses that have to deal with these differences.

Most of the changes are based on the specific circumstances of people in industry. In their testimony, they made their case to the legislators and the government to have the changes made. As the member for Sherbrooke, I pay taxes every year like everyone else, but I cannot put myself in the shoes of those whose tax circumstances are different or who are part of a business, for example. It is therefore important to have their comments so that we, as legislators, can change things that are flawed. Obviously, nothing is perfect.

In closing, I take issue with the size of the bill and the fact that the government waited so long to introduce such a technical bill. I am in favour of having a clearer, more precise process that is used more frequently so that the necessary changes can be made more quickly with smaller bills that are easier for parliamentarians to understand.

Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member across the aisle for his speech. I would like just to go through a few points in it.

He did mention some of the changes that happened to Bill C-38 to amalgamate 41 different agencies into 3. Obviously, there were some changes there, and so I think some answers need to be forthcoming.

For example, he said the minister would be able to delegate authority to certain processes that had not been yet named. That is simply because we work with our provincial partners that have equivalency or may want to substitute certain environmental processes to ensure it gets done on a timely basis. Whoever has the most expertise, I think, should be in charge of that process, whether it be the federal government or the province. That is to be worked out.

However, if we look at labour and environmental health and safety, we work with the provinces all the time, and so when we harmonize these things, it would be better for business, better for Canadians—one set of rules.

Again, I have heard multiple references to amendments. People have said that we say we welcome amendments. I say we do.

However, here is the problem. The member for Kings—Hants, in Bill C-45, put 300 amendments forward, each one like 101 bottles of beer on the wall, such as asking for one day to be changed as to when the bill would then take effect.

I would like to hear from the member one amendment that is—

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the motion before us is rather bizarre. As many members have said before me, it is quite surprising that the government is using the excuse of urgency.

The government has imposed closure a record 33 times, as well as restrictions on the time allowed to study bills in committee. With Bill C-60, this same government gave notice of a time allocation motion after only one hour of debate. I did say only one hour of debate. This is the same government that introduced monster omnibus bills because it did not want the committees and parliamentarians to properly study their legislative proposals in good faith.

I am not afraid of hard work. I am a doctor by training and I am used to 12-hour and even 24-hour shifts. It is not pleasant, but you get used to it.

My colleagues and I have not hesitated to stand up to the government and to do our jobs, as was the case with legislation to force Canada Post employees back to work and regarding their working conditions. We stood our ground when necessary.

It is obvious that the Conservatives do not have any respect for democratic institutions. I just mentioned the 33 time allocation motions they have imposed since May 2, 2011. What a sorry record.

The omnibus bills, such as Bills C-38 and C-45, are perfect examples of this. The Conservatives have steamrolled their way through adopting measures that Canadians and parliamentarians did not have the chance to scrutinize.

As everyone knows, the appropriate committees were unable to properly study Bill C-38 because it was not split up. That is disrespectful. With Bill C-45, the Conservatives used a different approach in order to curry favour with the public.

However, I can speak from my experience with the Standing Committee on Health. What a joke. The committee's meeting on Bill C-45 started late because of yet another time allocation motion. We then heard from witnesses and had just one round of questions. It is clear to me that the government did not really want the committees to study the impact of the measures. It just wanted to look better without having to do better. That too shows a lack of respect for our democratic institutions.

I also think that what is happening in committee is not right. Many witnesses take the time to come here to speak to subjects or bills that are important to them. Most of the time, however, their contributions are ignored. It is as though the committees were a waste of time. In any event, the outcome is prepared in advance by the Prime Minister's Office and so are many of the Conservative members' statements.

Yesterday, the House Leader of the Official Opposition said that 99.3% of all amendments proposed by the opposition have been rejected by the government.

This implies that every single one of the bills the government introduces is practically perfect.

In 99.3% of the cases, the government outright rejected all of the testimony from witnesses and experts, all of the comments from the public and all of the amendments proposed during the study of the bill. That is simply impossible.

Based on what we heard from witnesses, and after studying some bills in the Standing Committee on Health, I know that some of these bills could have benefited from the proposed amendments.

The NDP is not afraid of work. The problem is that I am not sure the government wants to extend our hours in order to get more work done. It has not guaranteed that we will be here until the summer recess.

I belong to a party that has the word “democratic” in its name, and I take these issues very seriously. The people of Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert put their trust in me on May 2, 2011, and I am doing my best to represent them.

Canadians sent us here to ask the necessary questions and to implement the best policies and public practices. We think that the government should take action so that we can do our job properly. The Prime Minister is now playing the victim over what happened in the Senate with senators he himself appointed solely to raise money for the Conservative Party of Canada. The Prime Minister is now playing the victim and wondering how this could have happened.

How could his chief of staff give a $90,000 cheque to a senator the Prime Minister himself appointed? How could his chief of staff—who sat right next to him every single day, who knows the government's deepest, darkest secrets and who the Prime Minister put in charge of major trade files and negotiations with other countries—do that?

Of course, the Prime Minister's hands are clean, and he has nothing to say about this. He believes that his hands are so clean that he is not going to answer any questions about it. He is going to South America for trade talks with countries we already have trade deals with.

Parliament should become less irrelevant. We think it is wrong that it ever became irrelevant. When the government is wrong in its treatment and abuse of Canada's Parliament, that affects all Canadians, whatever their political persuasion. We think what the government is doing is fundamentally wrong and that it needs a little adult supervision from time to time to take some of those suggestions and put a little, as we say, water in its wine. The government needs that more than anything.

It has the majority. This is the irony of what the government is doing. In moving more time allocation than any government in history, shutting down debate more than any government in history and relying on the tactics it is using today, it is showing weakness, not strength.

The Conservatives have the numbers to move legislation through if they saw fit, but they do not. They move legislation, they say it is an agenda and they hold up a raft of bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will share my speaking time with my colleague, the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.

I have been given time to speak to this motion. Once again this week, the government is moving to extend our evening sitting hours significantly. It wants Parliament to sit until midnight.

We have to take a close look at this motion because similar motions in the past have often resulted in a shorter parliamentary calendar.

Since the beginning of this discussion, the Conservatives have continually surprised us with messages utterly at odds with what we are used to hearing.

Just like that, the government wants to extend the time we spend in the House. It claims this approach will enable members to debate bills on the order paper in detail and work hard for Canadians.

How ironic. After constantly curtailing debate ever since the last election, the government now says it wants to extend sitting hours to provide opportunities for debate.

Also ironic is the fact that the government has so much to say about democracy despite its unrelenting and unprecedented contempt for our parliamentary bodies.

Such principles were conspicuous by their absence when the government prorogued Parliament for purely partisan reasons, a move that was bad for Canadians.

Let us not forget that the Prime Minister had absolutely no compunction about letting dozens of bills die on the order paper when he wanted to save his government's hide. How can he say that he wants to let bills move through the normal legislative process when his political agenda has been given top priority in the current legislative cycle?

When a government constantly uses adjournment motions as a tactic to limit participation in and duration of debates, that is not democracy. It is exactly the opposite of what has been moved today.

May 8 was the 33rd time the government brought a vote on a time allocation motion that effectively limits the number of MPs who can speak to a given bill.

It sure looks like the Conservatives have been hell-bent on beating their own record for shutting down debate ever since the beginning of this Parliament.

How can the government say that it wants to promote free debate when it holds the record for cutting debate short? Are we supposed to believe that the government really wants to have it both ways?

Nor is it very democratic when the Prime Minister's Office muzzles its own members in their statements in the House.

Personally, neither I nor my colleagues in the official opposition have to get our speeches approved or adjusted to go with the soup of the day. We speak freely, without constraint from our party, but the government members cannot say the same.

How can the Conservatives stand here today and say that they defend democracy when they put gag orders on their own party's statements and speeches in the House?

Working for Canadians does not mean introducing three mammoth bills like Bills C-38, C-45 and C-60, and then watering down debate, limiting discussion and preventing parliamentarians from learning about what is happening in parliamentary committee, as is the case with a typical bill.

How can the Conservatives claim that they want to let the parliamentary process follow its course when they are the first to short-circuit it by forcing the vote on hundreds of measures without allowing representatives to do their work properly?

Never in the history of this country has a government shown such contempt for our institutions. That is why it is becoming difficult today to understand and believe the lines the Conservatives are trying to feed us.

You cannot on the one hand advocate for extending our sitting time to encourage debate, and on the other hand interfere constantly, as the Conservatives have done with complete impunity.

Therefore, we must question the motives behind the government's desire to extend the sitting hours.

If we look at what has happened in the past, we see that, in general, extending the sitting hours allows the party in power to make the parliamentary calendar shorter. Right now, the Conservatives clearly do not have enough credibility for us to believe their intentions and trust them.

We have to wonder whether the government simply wants to be forgotten as quickly as possible over the summer and to have people forget about all the problems that its wilful blindness caused with the temporary foreign worker program.

Yesterday, the government House leader said that he wanted to accelerate his government's economic measures. If he really cares about the economy, how could he let senators make such extravagant expenditures on the backs of taxpayers? The fact is that the government would rather shirk its responsibilities than face any challenges, answer the official opposition's questions and allow a real debate on issues that are of concern to Canadians. That is the real problem.

If the government wants to fully debate the bills on the order paper, then it should allow the House to sit until June 21, as set out on the calendar. The NDP is prepared to debate. The NDP is prepared to sit until June 21, as scheduled.

We have demonstrated our commitment and dedication to Parliament on numerous occasions. One of our members once even sat for 22 consecutive hours. When the government wanted to lock out Canada Post employees, we were there to debate and to stand up for Canadians.

Every day, we are here to stand up for the interests of Canadians. We routinely propose amendments in order move forward on bills that have sometimes been introduced over a year and a half ago, but these amendments are rejected by a government that wants to promote a political agenda rather than work for Canadians.

First and foremost, we oppose the government's motivations for wanting to impose extended sitting hours. Canadians will not be fooled. They understand the political game that the Conservatives are constantly playing. Canadians know that they cannot trust the Conservatives.

Extention of Sitting Hours

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not very happy about being here. However, I am here because we need to stand up to this government, which believes that Parliament exists only for its benefit and that it is just a place concerned with the government's problems and accountability.

It is almost as if a new party came into the House today, as we listen to the Conservative House leader speak. It certainly is not the party that moved prorogation and killed legislation time and again. This new Conservative Party is suddenly interested in not defeating legislation. It could not be the same Conservative Party that has shut down debate in the House of Commons more than any party in Canadian history. It could not be a member of the same party who was speaking here today, talking about opening up debate. The Conservatives have invented a new world for themselves that is fascinating.

I am reflecting on my friend from Langley, who sought to speak in this House on what they call an S. O. 31 statement, which happens just before question period. It is a statement that lasts for about a minute. Usually members of Parliament get up and make a statement about their ridings about some issue that is important to them. My friend from Langley, who sits in the Conservative Party, was a parliamentary secretary, I remember, for the Minister of the Environment, a chair, a well-respected member of Parliament, and a friend. He sought to stand up and speak to something he thought was important to his constituents.

It was the old Conservative Party that shut down that member of Parliament and every other one who tried to get up and speak, because this new Conservative Party talks about wanting people to speak in the House and wanting to have debate.

While it is refreshing to hear it, I do not believe it, and I do not think Canadians are going to believe that suddenly accountability and democracy have broken out within the Prime Minister's Office. It is the office of this particular Prime Minister who, rather than face any uncomfortable questions from the media or the official opposition members today, or for the rest of this week, has decided that going to South America to sit with other trading partners from other countries we already have established trade deals with to talk about trade deals that already exist is much more important than asking questions about the Senate.

It must be a new Conservative Party that suddenly has on its agenda a legislative directive that the members need to sit longer hours and work hard on something that might be quite topical today, something such as the reform of Canada's Senate, which has been long overdue and long called for by Canadians and New Democrats who said that the place was fundamentally broken. There is no accountability. Unelected and under investigation is the new Senate.

I remember the old Reform Party. You probably do as well, Mr. Speaker. It came in riding from the west, from my part of the world.

I see a member across the way, who was one of the founding members of the Reform Party, calling it a beautiful thing. While I disagreed fundamentally with many of its positions, certainly its social positions, there was something on which I could see some common ground. That was to make Parliament more accountable and to reform the Senate.

The current government has now been in power almost seven long years. Is that right? The time goes slowly. In those six or seven years, the Prime Minister made a promise as one of his fundamental commitments to Canadians. Commitments should be treated sacredly, I believe.

We all get up at elections. We have party platforms and promises we make to Canadians. If we win, that platform and those promises become our agenda. That is what we would seek to do in office. It is simple. One of his promises, one of his agendas, one of his reforms was on the Senate. When the Conservatives were in opposition, they would see those Liberal senators down there taking their money, not really representing anybody, going on trips and maybe even defrauding taxpayers. Who knows? The Reform movement came in and said it was wrong and anti-democratic.

For a party that decided to put “democratic” right in the middle of our name, we take these questions seriously. We feel that it is accountability to the people we on the orange team represent. In a sense, we are watching this Prime Minister now play victim to what is going on in the Senate with senators he appointed exclusively and explicitly to raise money for the Conservative Party of Canada. Now this same Prime Minister claims victimhood and wonders how this happened. How did his chief of staff, who sits to his immediate left every day and knows his deepest, darkest secrets, whom he put in charge of major trade files and negotiations with other countries, cut a $90,000 cheque to a senator he appointed? However, obviously, the Prime Minister's hands are clean, and he has nothing to say about this. He believes that his hands are so clean that he is not going to answer any questions about it. He is going to go to South America to be in trade talks with countries we already have trade deals with. That is the new Conservative Party, which is the old one, the same one that has forgotten its roots.

Dear Mr. Manning is still with us, so he is not spinning in his grave, but he is definitely spinning. He was asked recently whether the Conservatives have lost their principles. He said, no, they have maintained their priorities. It is an interesting dodge of a question. Mr. Speaker, you have been around politics a bit. You know when a question is put directly and someone answers it indirectly.

I find it incredible that we have before us a motion that continues to abuse Parliament. This motion is designed simply to restrict debate and demonstrate to members of the House of Commons that the only reason Parliament exists is so that the government can do what it wants.

I remember a comment made by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. When we were debating a time allocation motion, he said that their intention was not to put an end to debate or to censure it, but just to control Parliament.

It is incredible that a minister is admitting that the Conservatives just want to control the Parliament of Canada. It also reflects the Conservatives' esprit de corps. They want to control everything, not just the opposition and Parliament, but their members, as well as the media and the public.

The current vision of the Prime Minister and the government leaves the public with no choice and no voice. It is all about the kind of country that the Prime Minister wants to build.

We see a government moving this extraordinary thing, which will see, big deal, members of Parliament sitting until midnight.

New Democrats have been known, sometimes to our detriment, to be willing to force the calendar to the very last minute and sit all night, such as when the government moved anti-worker legislation against a very profitable Canada Post, which, I might add, in a parenthetical way, then lost money.

After the lockout by Canada Post, the government imposed wage contracts on those workers that were less than what the company was willing to offer. Then it said that it needed to shut down Canada Post offices around the country, as Canada Post was losing money because of the lockout it allowed them to do. The logic is inherently twisted on that side.

Remember the omnibus debates and the voting we had. I remember my friend from the Green Party moving a certain number of amendments to the bill, which forced the House to sit all night and vote, hour after hour. I remember some of my friends from Surrey who stayed in their seats for 22 hours.

No one has ever accused New Democrats of not being willing to come to work and work on behalf of our constituents. We may do some things wrong. We may sometimes fall short in some areas, but hard work has not ever been one of those things.

There is such irony in hearing a Conservative House leader who, with his Prime Minister, has prorogued Parliament, shut it down, and killed their government's own legislation time and time again, say to the Speaker that the problem is that they cannot get their legislation through.

It had been there for 12 months. After eight months, they killed it themselves and prorogued the House.

One prorogation was quite notable. The government looked to be in a bit of trouble. It was in a minority position. The world was entering into a very deep recession. The Minister of Finance, who claims to be the best in the world, ignored the recession and introduced what the Conservatives called an austerity budget at the very moment when the rest of the world, realizing that the economy was coming to a virtual standstill, was introducing budgets that did the opposite.

The finance genius we have sitting in the chair said, “Never mind what the rest of the world thinks about what is going on in the global economy; we know that Canada is not going into recession”, even as we were in the midst of a recession. He introduced an austerity budget to cut back billions in job creation, in grants and in all the things the Conservatives take credit for, such as unemployment insurance for a bunch of Canadians who were just being thrown out of work.

The opposition said that it was not a very good budget and suggested that we vote against that budget. The government panicked and prorogued. Canadians got a civil lesson in how Parliament works. They had never heard the word “prorogation” before. Then we got to learn.

The Prime Minister had to go to the Governor General. He sat there for a number of hours, perhaps being lectured about how undemocratic it was, when facing a non-confidence vote, to head down the road to the Queen's representative to ask for permission to shut it all down before he was thrown out of office. He was more worried about his job that day than about Canadians. That is for sure.

That is a government that killed its legislation in order to save itself, and did it time and time again.

Here is the trend that we worry about with today's motion. For a government that has broken the record by shutting down debate more times than any government in Canadian history, it has refused 99.3% of all the amendments that the opposition has brought to its legislation.

Let us look at that for a moment. The way a bill is supposed to work is it comes into the House and gets debated. There is a pro and con and the real coming together or clash of ideas to improve the legislation because no one is perfect. The drafters of legislation do not get it right. They are sometimes hundreds of pages long and very complicated. The House is meant to debate that. Then we send it to committee and hear from experts, not just members of Parliament who are not often experts in these areas, but people who work in the field. They are the social workers, the financial experts, the crime experts and the police. We hear those suggestions and write amendments based on those ideas. That is the way this place is supposed to work.

However, the government is saying that in 99.3% of those cases those experts are wrong and the government is right. It will not change a period, a comma, not a word in any of the legislation. Then lo and behold, time and time again, the legislation is challenged in the courts successfully. The legislation does not fix the problems identified and costs Canada and Canadians billions.

We all remember well Bill C-30, the Internet snooping bill that would allow the state to look in on the Internet searches and emails of Canadians without any warrant. The government decided in its vigour for its tough on crime agenda that it would pass a law that said that at any point, at any time, Canadians anywhere could have their BlackBerrys and iPhones tapped by the government, that web searches on home computers could be looked at by the government and the police. There is no country in the world, outside of Iran and North Korea, that would even consider doing this. The Conservative government thought it was a fantastic idea. In trying to argue the case, it said that if we were not into exposing our Internet searches and our emails then we must be in support of child pornography.

Has any more offensive or stupid an argument ever been made on the floor of the House of Commons? It is offensive to basic civil liberties and decency, to the role of members of Parliament trying to do our jobs and to the Canadians who said that they were not sure they wanted the government looking at their email?

I look at the member for Yukon right now. I do not know what he is searching and I do not want to know. It is his privacy to look on his computer and do as he sees fit. That is a civil liberty I am sure he defends as well, but not his government.

Bill C-10, the omnibus crime bill, was the flagship. The government rammed it all into one bill and said that it was such important legislation it would shut down debate on it too. Then whole sections of the bill were taken out. Why? It was because they were unconstitutional.

Now we know where that all comes from. Canadians actually pay for a service. Many members of Parliament may not know this, but when a government introduces a bill it goes to constitutional legal experts to determine if the new legislation goes against our constitution, our foundation as a country? If it does, it is a good idea to modify the law to ensure it does not get challenged in the courts, which costs upwards of $3 million to $5 million to taxpayers every time there is one of those challenges. The government did not check on Bill C-10. We know that because the people who work for the Government of Canada, who do this work, are no longer receiving references from the government.

The government is not even asking anymore. It is choosing ignorance. This is incredible. It is saying that it does not want to know whether the laws it writes are constitutional, whether the laws it writes as a government are for or against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is incredible. This is not a mistake. It is by intention. Therefore, we have these lawyers sitting in their offices, being paid every day, waiting for the government to refer the bills it introduces here to ensure they can survive a constitutional challenge. The government does not ask anymore.

Bill C-38, the first omnibus bill and Bill C-45, the second omnibus bill, were both challenged in the courts as unconstitutional. First nations are challenging it. I need to address this because the government House leader mentioned two bills that are being moved, so-called, on behalf of first nations. They are Bill S-2 and Bill S-8. One is matrimonial property rights. It sounds pretty innocuous. Most Canadians would say that matrimonial property rights for first nations women on reserve maybe protects their rights. Who is opposed to it? It is not just us in the opposition, but aboriginal women, every first nation women's group in the country. My friend across the way shakes his head, but I can show him the testimony that says the bill is no good for aboriginal women.

However, the Conservatives know better. With their shameful record on aboriginal rights and title in the country, suddenly they know better than aboriginal women, than first nations women. Bill S-8 is a bill to help first nations have clean drinking water because the record has been shameful.

Government after government has failed first nations communities. Thirty-five per cent of the people I represent in northern British Columbia are in first nations communities. The water conditions there are incredibly bad. We have to do something about it. There are fixes and there are ideas coming from those communities.

Instead the government moves the bill, handing all responsibility down to first nations in terms of cleaning up their own water mess, but none of the resources to do it. Are first nations supportive of it? No. Nor would any municipality or any province in Canada be supportive of legislation that rams down responsibility without any of the support, money or help to get that done.

Most of these first nations communities are living in abject poverty. Where does the government think they are going to get the money from? The government will not settle treaty with them in the west. First nations are having mining, oil and gas exploration and pipelines put everywhere and are receiving none of the royalties, none of the compensation and the government will not move treaty forward.

I was just in Gitxsan territory, speaking with the Gitxsan and the Wet'suwet'en, talking about basic child services, kids who are being abused in their homes and setting up a program that the federal government said that we should enact 20 years ago to allow first nations more rights and responsibilities to rescue those kids and help them kids integrate back into their communities.

Who is not coming to the table? The Conservative government. This is the government that on Bill S-2 and Bill S-8 suddenly said that it had first nations rights and title and priorities at heart, when it did not.

The place can work. Members can sense a certain amount of frustration in my voice, because Parliament can work. It is actually designed to work. I love our system. It is so superior to many other systems I have studied around the world, that have consistent congressional gridlock on legislation and on budgets. We can make things happen here.

However, with the power that is afforded a majority government, which is a lot, comes a certain amount of responsibility to use the power wisely and not abuse it. Yet time and again we have seen the government House leader and other ministers get up and say that they are not looking to limit the debate; they just want to control it. They reject virtually 100% of all the amendments and all the changes and suggestions they hear at committee because they know better and they have the votes to push it forward.

It is at such a point that the control has extended deeply into the government's caucus. Some of the more socially conservative members of the Conservative caucus are no longer free to speak, or are only free to speak on certain things, in certain ways, if the Prime Minister's Office allows for it.

In a small program that we run in northern B.C., initiated a number of years ago, I hold a conference call with all the detachment commanders from all the RCMP outposts that exist in my riding. It is a very large riding facing a lot of tough, difficult situations with policing. Once every two or three months I get on the phone with 12 detachment commanders and we talk about what is going on. We talk about what is happening in crime, what the drug use is like, what legislation is moving through the House that will help or hinder these hard-working, hard-serving officers.

I am not allowed to have that conversation with these RCMP officers anymore. I am not supposed to talk to them. As a sitting member of Parliament, I am not supposed to go to them. A number of them have come to me because they are friends and we have known each other for years. They offer good, on-the-ground advice about what is happening.

They say that they are sorry, that they cannot talk to me. They tell me that I have to phone the Prime Minister's Office in order for them to talk to me about what is going on in Prince Rupert, or what is going on in Dease Lake or Bella Coola.

It is insane. This is wrong. Government officials at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, who I have known for years and who I phone just for an update to see what is going on with our fish on the west coast, tell me that I am a member of Parliament from the opposition and that I need to phone the people in the Prime Minister's Office and that they will give me permission as to whether they can tell me what is going on in Canada's fishery.

This is not their government. This is not a Conservative government. This is Canada's government. We pay for these civil servants. We pay their salaries to do work on behalf of Canadians. Whether it is silencing scientists, shutting down access for members of Parliament to basic conversations, or shutting down debate in Parliament, the consistent voice from the government is that it will not be held to account.

This is bad. This is not just about the privilege all members of the House need to do their job. The government says there is some urgency, but there is not. There is no urgency when it comes to the government's mandate or agenda.

It is very strange for the government to say it is very open, when we see what is going on in the Senate.

We have senators like Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau. All current senators have potentially stolen money from Canadians. These are the same senators that the Prime Minister says are very good people. These are the same senators using money from the Canadian people to travel during an election and raise money for the Conservative Party. That is the new Conservative Party. I do not understand.

I remember the Reform Party of Canada and some reforms that Mr. Manning wanted to make. With the current party, it is the same story as with the Liberal Party and the Gomery commission and all the rest. I am both angry and sad.

The majority of Canadians did not vote for this government, which has a majority, but does not have the majority support of Canadians. Close to 60% of Canadians voted against this agenda, against this sort of arrogance. They voted not to have the kind of government that now uses brutal tactics, not against the New Democratic Party, but against Parliament.

Lastly, I think we need to have a referendum, which may not happen until the next election.

It bears some comment, not only with respect to the Senate scandal but even the motion today.

I watched the government House leader and the Prime Minister on television earlier. He actually allowed the media into his caucus room for a second, which was bizarre. The bully turns into the victim, that somehow this is put upon them, that they are somehow being victimized here.

What frustrates me is not just the work that we have to do as parliamentarians that is constantly thwarted by the government at committee stage, and my friend laughs, but how can it be possible that 99.3% of all amendments were rejected? The evidence is clear.

My friend can shake his head and laugh and treat this with disdain or heckle out what seems to be a favourite tactic of some of my friends who cannot win the debate, but can simply sit in their seats and heckle, yell and try to put down a comment that hurts a little too much, that being that 99.3% of all amendments were rejected, that the witnesses were all wrong, that the government was always right and that the courts must be wrong too. Soon the Conservatives will call them activist courts like the Republicans do in the states. Members should watch for it because it is coming.

We believe this motion is fundamentally flawed in its abuse of this place and of all members. I do not speak just for the New Democrats or the folks down the way. I speak for the backbenchers who have been rubbing up against some of the limitations. What is sad about most of it and is most concerning is those who are not agitating against the Conservative government's control over its backbench and accepting it. I lament the most for those who are so comfortable reading the script from the Prime Minister's Office and repeating it like robots, feeling that is their work and whose expectations of what it is to be a member of Parliament are so diminished that they simply accept it, not those the media have called rebels who have stood up and stated that they want to have their own statement but the Prime Minister's Office has shut them down. They run under the blue banner, which is their choice.

I lament for those who seem so happy to get up and repeat the mindless dribble that is put to them by the Prime Minister's Office day after day. When they first ran for office, I wonder if they said that they wanted to be a member of Parliament to represent people and get to Parliament to speak with a strong voice of conviction on behalf of the people they represent and that in order to do they would read whatever was put in front of them by the Prime Minister's Office, written by a 24-year-old intern who types out some sort of nonsense and makes up policies that the NDP does not have, making personal attacks on a regular basis as a substitute for honest and sincere debate? Was that really their expectation?

I wish I had some video evidence from some of those early debates because I know that is not what those members ran on. I know their nomination meetings did not look like that, nor did any of the debates they attended during the campaign. That is not what they said. They said that they would speak on behalf of their constituents, fight for them and still raise their voice, even if that meant it was contrary to what their government suggested.

I am sure that is what my friends across the way said. They are very nice people. I know a lot of these folks, as we have spent some time together. I know some of their inner thoughts about the way Parliament ought to be, and some of them lament it. However, it is the ones who do not who worry me. They are the ones who so comfortably slip into that straitjacket day after day. Maybe they just get used to it, but they are able to rationalize that there is some larger agenda that is more important than their having an independent and free voice.

They can keep yelling and you can allow them to if you wish, Mr. Speaker, but the truth often hurts, and the truth of the matter is that with a majority government, this member and his colleagues have chosen to vote for closure more than any government in Canadian history. With a majority, the Conservative government has refused the evidence, has refused the science time and time again, and that government is bad government.

The Conservative government appointed senators, and I am sure some fundraising went on for some of my friends. Maybe Ms. Wallin, Mr. Duffy or Mr. Brazeau came by and raised a few dollars, shook a few hands and got a few votes for my friends. Maybe there is a little bit of a tarnish on my colleagues, which is why they are calling out and why they are worried. It is because their base hates this. They hate the idea of entitlement and of an insider's game that goes on in Ottawa all the time, and that friends of the Prime Minister's Office get some sort of special treatment.

Talking about special treatment, how about a $90,000 personal cheque just cut off the back and handed over to somebody who may have defrauded taxpayers? Where is the Reform Party now? Where are the original Conservative intentions now? They are gone, bit by bit, eroded piece by piece. That is where it has gone, and it has all been subjugated to some idea that there is a better and bigger cause, that this grand scheme they are involved in somehow makes all of it justifiable.

Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, what these guys would sound like if the roles were reversed? If it were a Liberal government with senators getting cheques from the Prime Minister's chief of staff or a New Democratic government acting the way the Conservatives act, could you imagine the hue and cry and the calls for resignations every second minute? They would be losing their minds.

Now the Conservatives play the victim, saying that these senators were put upon them, that they didn't know what they were doing, that it is terrible. They only have a majority, both here and there. The Prime Minister has appointed more senators than any Prime Minister in Canadian history. How many did he say he would appoint? None, but he had to appoint some, and then it had to be justified. These are small and slow slippages, and this motion is a continuation of that.

This motion says that Parliament matters less and that those Canadians who have grown cynical about the role of MPs are justified in their cynicism. We say that is wrong. How do we turn to the young voters coming up? How do we turn to people who come to us and say that they might want to run for office one day? How can we say that their voices will matter when the government moves motions like this time and time again, shutting down debate?

As my friend the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development said, the Conservatives do not want to shut down debate; they just want to control it. Is this is how one entices people into a life of politics? Is this how one encourages young people to vote? Do we say, “Welcome to Parliament, where we are going to control debate and shut it down time and time again”? This is the Conservatives' call to action.

It is not a call to action, but a call to inaction. It is a call to cynicism. It is calling to people, “Do not look over here; nothing is happening here in government. Go on with your lives and other things that are more important and distracting.” The government is counting on people to have an attention deficit rather than realize that the decisions we make here in Parliament every day affect Canadians in every way.

If members of Parliament cannot do their work, as this motion suggests, and hold the government to account, it is bad government. It is bad government when it cannot find $3 billion that may be under a mattress or in a banana stand or wherever it happens to be, and when senators rip off taxpayers with no consequence whatsoever. We think the RCMP might have a role to play here.

What would happen if any of the Canadians in our gallery today or watching on TV defrauded the Canadian government of $500? They would get charged. However, if it is a Conservative senator, what happens? Oh, they just recuse themselves from caucus. Wow. They still get paid, they still have all of their privileges, but they cannot go to caucus meetings on Wednesday mornings.

Mr. Speaker, do you think that maybe that punishment is a little severe? I mean, having to recuse oneself from a two-hour meeting on Wednesday morning for defrauding taxpayers—boy, that seems pretty harsh.

Why the double standard? We used to call that the culture of entitlement. I remember a colleague of mine in this place, Ed Broadbent, asking a former Liberal minister who became head of the mint and was claiming packets of gum and coffee on his receipts, “Are you entitled to your entitlements, sir?” This person took a moment of authenticity and said, “Yes, I am entitled to my entitlements.”

The Conservatives railed at the Liberal entitlement, the culture of entitlement, the Gomery inquiry and all those terrible things that went down.

History repeats itself if one is not a student of history, and it seems that the Conservative Party has not looked at the history of this place or of other parliaments.

The fact of the matter is that debate in and of itself is not a bad thing. The exchange of ideas is not in and of itself a bad thing. Being wrong from time to time is not of itself a bad thing; learning happens in those moments, and the government needs to learn, because I can read off the list of the bills it had so fundamentally wrong that it had to withdraw them. The Conservatives had to say that they got it so badly wrong because they listened to none of the amendments that they have to fix it now, at the very last minute, or wait until it gets to the Senate and let the unaccountable, unelected and under investigation senators deal with it. That is no form of democracy worth defending, and the Conservatives know it. They know it better than most.

I will move that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after “Fridays” and replacing them with the following: “(b) when oral questions are to be taken up pursuant”—

Points of Order

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

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for interrupting my colleague just at the beginning of his speech on the justification for the motion that he has just presented to the House, but we have a point of order that we need to raise because I think it establishes a couple of important things for you, as Speaker, to determine before we get into the context and the particulars of this motion.

Specifically, I will be citing Standing Order 13, which says:

Whenever the Speaker is of the opinion that a motion offered to the House is contrary to the rules and privileges of Parliament, the Speaker shall apprise the House thereof immediately, before putting the question thereon, and quote the Standing Order or authority applicable to the case.

This is the standing order that we cite, because we have looked at the motion the government has presented here today with some notice given last week.

This motion goes against the Standing Orders and certainly the spirit of Parliament. The government is not allowed to break the rules of Parliament that protect the rights of the minority, the opposition and all members of the House of Commons who have to do their jobs for the people they represent. This motion is very clearly contrary to the existing Standing Orders.

I have some good examples to illustrate this. In my opinion, there is no urgency that would justify the government's heavy-handed tactics to prevent members from holding a reasonable debate on its agenda. I say “agenda”, but for a long time now it has been difficult to pin down what this government's agenda is exactly. This is nothing new.

The motion comes to us today at a difficult time, but just because the government held a brief caucus meeting and is facing numerous problems and a few scandals, it is not justified in violating the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. No one would accept those excuses. There is no historical basis for the government to use the Standing Orders in this way. That does not work.

There are a few important things we need to point out. One is that it behooves us to have some explanation of what this motion actually does. For those of us who do not intimately follow the rules and history of Parliament, it can be quite confusing not in terms of the intention of what the government has read but certainly in the implications. It needs some translation, not French to English or English to French, but translation as to what it actually means for the House of Commons. That is why we believe a point of order exists for this motion.

The motion essentially would immediately begin something that would ordinarily begin in a couple of weeks, which is for the House to sit until midnight to review legislation. This is somewhat ironic from a government that has a bad history with respect to moving legislation correctly through the process and allowing us to do our work, which is what we are here to do on behalf of Canadians.

I am not alone in seeing that the government has shown the intention of having some urgency with respect to 23 bills, 14 of which have not even been introduced since the last election. Suddenly there is great urgency, when in fact it is the government that has set the agenda. The urgency is so great that it has to fundamentally change the rules of how we conduct ourselves in this place in response to an urgency that did not exist until this moment.

One has to question the need. Why the panic? Why now, and why over these pieces of legislation? Are they crucial to Canada's economic well-being? Is it to restore the social safety net that the government has brutalized over the last number of years? What is the panic and what is the urgency?

Context sets everything in politics, and the context that the government exists under right now is quite telling. Every time I have had to stand in this place raising points of order and countering the closure and time allocation motions that the government uses, I am often stating and citing that this is a new low standard for Parliament. I have thought at times that there was not much more it could do to this place to further erode the confidence of Canadians or further erode the opportunity for members of Parliament to speak, yet it has again invented something new, and here we are today debating that motion.

That is why we believe that Standing Order 13 needs to be called. It is because it is very clear that when a motion is moved that is contrary to the rules and privileges of Parliament—which is what I would underline, as it is the important part—the Speaker must involve himself or herself in the debate and ask that the debate no longer proceed.

The privileges of members of Parliament are not the privileges that are being talked about by our friends down the hall to falsely claim money that did not exist or privileges of limo rides and trips around the world. The privileges of Parliament that speak constitutionally to the need for Parliament are that members of Parliament have the opportunity to scrutinized and debate government bills.

Just before the riding week, we saw the government introduce another time allocation on a bill that had received exactly 60 minutes of debate. Somehow the Conservatives felt that had exhausted the conversation on a bill they had sat on for years, and suddenly the panic was on. We are seeing this pattern again and again with a government that is facing more scandal.

I was looking through the news today. Every morning I start my day with the news and we consider what we should ask the government in question period. There are some days when the focus can be difficult and one may not be sure what the most important issue of the day is. However, the challenge for us today as the official opposition is that, as there are so many scandals on so many fronts, how do we address them all within the short time we have during question period or in debate on bills.

I listened to my friend for Langley, who has been somewhat in the news of late on his attempt to speak on issues he felt were important to his constituents. We saw him move a new private member's bill today. He withdrew the former bill, and now he is moving one again. The New Democrats will support the bill going to committee for study because we think there are some options and availability for us to look at the legislation and do our job.

Whether it is muzzling of their own MPs and the Conservatives' attempt to muzzle all MPs in the House of Commons, or using private members' bills to avoid the scrutiny that is applied to government legislation, and one important piece of that scrutiny is the charter defence of the legislation and so, in a sense, the Conservatives are using the back door to get government legislation through and move their agenda in another way, or the omnibus legislation, which has received so much controversy in Canada as the government has increasingly abused the use of omnibus legislation, or the F-35 fiasco, or the recent Auditor General's report, or the former parliamentary budget officer who was under much abuse and the new Parliamentary Budget Officer who has asked for the same things he did, or infamously, prorogation, time and time again the pattern is the same. The government has complete disdain for the House.

Whether it be the scandals in the Senate, or the China FIPA accord, or the recent problems with the Prime Minister's former chief of staff, or the employment insurance scandals, or the $3 billion missing, or the 300,000 jobs that have not been replaced, the government keeps trying to avoid proper scrutiny out of embarrassment. However, the House of Commons exists for one thing and one thing alone, which is to hold the government to account.

The government will make some claims that the urgency right now is because there has not been enough progress on legislation. Therefore, the Conservatives have to hit the panic button and would have the House sit until midnight, which has consequences beyond just being a late night, and I will get into those consequences in a moment because they support our notion that it infringes upon the entitlements of members of Parliament to debate legislation properly.

The Conservatives' record shows, and this is not speculation or conspiracy, that when they ram legislation through, they more often than not get it wrong. That is not just expensive for the process of law making, but it is expensive for Canadians. These things often end up in court costing millions and millions of dollars and with victims of their own making. The scandal that exists in the Senate is absolutely one of their own making. The Prime Minister can point the finger where he likes, but he appointed those senators.

Specific to the point of order I am raising, this motion would lower the amount of scrutiny paid to legislation. It would allow the government extended sittings, which are coming in the second week of June anyway, as the Standing Orders currently exist, to allow the government to do that, but the Conservatives want to move the clock up and have more legislation rammed through the House.

Also, as you would know, Mr. Speaker, the order of our day includes concurrence reports from committee, which allow the House to debate something that happened in committee which can sometimes be very critical, and many are moved from all sides. However, they would not get started until midnight under the Conservatives' new rules. Therefore, we would study and give scrutiny on what happened at committee from midnight until two or three o'clock in the morning.

As well, emergency debates would not start until midnight. Just recently we had a debate, Mr. Speaker, that your office agreed to allow happen, which was quite important to those implicated. We were talking about peace and war and Canada's role in the world. It was a critical emergency debate that certainly went into the night. However, the idea is that we would take emergency debates that the Speaker's office and members of Parliament felt were important and start them at midnight and somehow they would be of the same quality as those started at seven o'clock in the evening.

The scrutiny of legislation has become much less important than the government moving its agenda through, which is an infringement on our privilege as members of Parliament. The Conservatives' so-called urgency, their panic, is not a justification for overriding the privileges that members of Parliament hold dear.

As for progress, just recently we moved the nuclear terrorism bill through, Bill S-9.

We also had much debate but an improvement on Bill C-15, the military justice bill, to better serve our men and women in the forces. The original drafting was bad. The Conservatives wanted to force it forward and we resisted. My friend from St. John's worked hard and got an amendment through that would help those in the military who found themselves in front of a tribunal.

We have the divorce in civil marriages act, which has been sitting and sitting. It would allow people in same-sex marriages to file for and seek divorce. All we have offered to the government is one vote and one speaker each. The government refuses to bring the bill forward and I suspect it is because it would require a vote. It is a shame when a government resists the idea that a vote would be a good thing for members of Parliament to declare their intentions on, certainly something as important as civil liberties and rights for gay men and women.

I mentioned earlier why, in the infringement of this privilege, it causes great harm and distress not just to Parliament but to the country.

I asked my team to pull up the list of bills that were so badly written that they had to be either withdrawn or completely rewritten at committee and even in the Senate which, God knows, is a terrible strategy for any legislation.

There was the infamous or famous Bill C-30, the Internet snooping bill, which the Minister of Public Safety said something to the effect that either people were with the government or they were with child pornographers, which may be an example of the worst framing in Canadian political history. There has probably been worse, but that was pretty bad. The Conservatives had to kill the bill.

We have also seen Bill C-10, Bill C-31, Bill C-38 and Bill C-42, all of these bills were so badly written that oftentimes the government had to amend them after having voted for them. After saying they were perfect and ramming them through, invoking closure and shutting down debate, the Conservatives got to committee and heard from people who actually understood the issue and realized the law they had written would be illegal and would not work or fix the problem that was identified, and so they had to rewrite it. That is the point of Parliament. That is the point of the work we do.

We have also seen bills that have been challenged at great expense before the courts. Former Bill C-2, the tackling violent crime act, with huge sections of the government's main anti-crime agenda, was challenged and defeated in court.

Bill C-38, arbitrarily eliminating backlog for skilled workers, was challenged and defeated.

Bill C-7, Senate term limits, was after years just now deferred to the Supreme Court. It is called “kicking it down the road”.

Also, there are Bill C-6, Bill C-33 and others, and there are those that are being crafted and debated right now that are going to have serious problems.

The essential thrust of our intention is in identifying the rules that govern us, and specifically Standing Order 13. The government has time and again talked about accountability before the Canadian people and talked about doing things better than its predecessors in the Liberal Party, the government that became so arrogant and so unaccountable to Canadians that the Conservatives threw it out of office. History repeats itself if one does not learn true lessons from history.

As I mentioned, Standing Order 27(1) already exists, and it allows the government to do exactly what we are talking about, but not starting until the last 10 sitting days. The Conservatives have said that there is so much on their so-called agenda that they have to do this early, allowing for less scrutiny, allowing for emergency debates to start at midnight, allowing for concurrence debates that come from committees to start at midnight and go until two, three or four o'clock in the morning.

This is contrary to the work of parliamentarians. If the Conservatives are in such a rush, why do they not negotiate? Why do they not actually come to the table and do what parliamentarians have done throughout time, which is offer the to and fro of any proper negotiation between reasonable people?

We have moved legislation forward. My friend across the way was moving an important motion commemorating war heroes. We worked with that member and other members to ensure the bill, which came from the Senate, made it through speedy passage.

Parliament can work if the Conservatives let it work, but it cannot work if they keep abusing it. Canadians continue to lose faith and trust in the vigour of our work and the ability to hold government to account. We see it time and again, and I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you have as well, in talking to constituents who say that they are not sure what goes on here anymore, that it just seems like government will not answer questions, that everyday they ask sincere and thoughtful questions and the Conservatives do not answer. Bills get shut down with motions of closure.

Let us look at the current government's record.

Thirty-three times, the Conservatives have moved time allocation on legislation, an all-time high for any government in Canadian history. Through war and peace, through good and bad, no government has shut down debate in Parliaments more than the current one.

Ninety-nine point three per cent of all amendments moved by the opposition have been rejected by the government. Let us take a look at that stat for a moment. That suggests that virtually 100% of the time, the government has been perfectly right on the legislation it moves. All the testimony from witnesses and experts, comments from average Canadians, when moving amendments to the legislation before us, 99.3% of the time the government rejects it out of hand. It ends up in court. It ends up not doing what it was meant to do.

Ten Conservative MPs have never spoken to legislation at all. I will note one in particular. The Minister of Finance, who has not bothered to speak to his own bills, including the omnibus legislation, Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, which caused so much controversy. He did not bother to stand and justify his actions. I find it deplorable and it is not just me, Canadians as well, increasingly so.

This is my final argument. We cannot allow this abuse to continue. This pattern has consequences, not just for what happens here today or tomorrow, but in the days, weeks, months and years to come and the Parliaments to come. If we keep allowing for and not standing up in opposition to bad ideas and draconian measures, we in a sense condone them.

We say that Parliament should become less irrelevant. We think that is wrong. We think what the government is doing is fundamentally wrong. It is not right and left; it is right and wrong. When the government is wrong in its treatment and abuse of Canada's Parliament, that affects all Canadians, whatever their political persuasion. We built this place out of bricks and mortar to do one thing: to allow the voice of Canadians to be represented, to speak on behalf of those who did not have a voice and to hold the government of the day to account. Lord knows the government needs that more than anything. It needs a little adult supervision from time to time to take some of those suggestions and put a little, as we say, water in its wine.

It has the majority. This is the irony of what the government is doing. In moving more time allocation than any government in history and shutting down debate more than any government in history and using what it is today, it speaks to weakness not strength. The Conservatives have the numbers to move legislation through if they saw fit, but they do not. They move legislation, they say it is an agenda and they hold up a raft of bills.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of rising in the House today to speak to Bill C-60 on behalf of my constituents in Berthier—Maskinongé, who are opposed to this new omnibus bill.

In my opinion, the short title of this bill, Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, is not really appropriate.

After reading through this bill, I am once again disappointed to see that there is nothing in it that will bring about economic recovery or create jobs or make life more affordable for Canadians. On the contrary, the Conservatives have raised taxes on a number of consumer goods.

Budget 2013 is full of tax increases on hospital parking, safety deposit boxes, labour-sponsored investment funds, bicycles and baby buggies. These increases even affected hockey helmets, until my colleague from Sudbury pointed that out and the government had to cancel the increases on hockey helmets and sports equipment.

These tax increases will cost Canadians $8 billion over the next five years. This budget will not just raise the cost of living. It will also slow economic growth.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer analyzed the economic situation and the bills brought in by this government. She found that budget 2012, the 2012 update and budget 2013 will result in the loss of 67,000 jobs by 2017 and will cause a 0.57% decline in the GDP. I do not need to say that this is not a good thing for our country’s economic growth.

With wages stagnating, uncertain jobs and families heavily in debt, the Conservatives are proposing austerity measures that add to the cost of living for Canadian families and stifle economic growth.

This bill contains a number of complex measures that deserve to be considered and examined carefully. For the third time in their current term, however, the Conservatives are proposing to evade the oversight of parliamentarians and the public. I find this insulting on several levels. We are here to examine bills. When the government imposes gag orders, we cannot do our job.

This bill contains changes to the temporary foreign worker program. The Conservatives are proposing to close major loopholes by giving the department the last word when work permits or opinions about a permit application become a source of political embarrassment. That does not solve the main problem, which is the mismanagement of the temporary foreign worker program by the present government.

I have received many emails from the people of Berthier—Maskinongé criticizing the changes in Bill C-60 that enable the government to compel a crown corporation to have its negotiating mandate approved by the Treasury Board so that it can reach a collective agreement with a union, particularly in the case of the CBC.

The people of Berthier—Maskinongé do not want to see any politician exercise that kind of control over our national public broadcaster. The changes proposed in Bill C-60 constitute an all-out attack on the right to free collective bargaining in Canada.

The NDP opposes Bill C-60 based on its content, but also on the process used. With so little time to study of the bill, members cannot consider its consequences. Once again, the Conservatives are trying to keep Canadians in the dark, and it is Canadians who will ultimately pay the price.

Today I would like to focus on a few specific aspects of the bill. I have noticed a truly disturbing trend in this government's legislative program.

Several changes made recently show how little the Conservatives know about the need for a long-term strategy for our regions. I am thinking in particular of the elimination of the labour-sponsored funds tax credit, the employment insurance reform and the cuts to all services.

One important measure that has drawn my attention is the cancellation of the labour-sponsored funds tax credit in this last budget. The government has announced the phasing-out of the 15% tax credit it grants for shareholders of labour-sponsored funds.

This decision is a serious mistake and shows that the Conservatives understanding nothing about Quebec's economic model and the role these funds play in the province and, of course, in the economies of the rural regions.

Ninety per cent of the amounts that Ottawa wants to recover with this measure will come from Quebec savers and investors, since virtually all of these funds are in Quebec. This decision will mainly affect the middle class and its ability to save for retirement, in addition to depriving Quebec SMEs of significant support for their development.

Once again, the government has turned a deaf ear, just as it did on the employment insurance reform. On April 27, thousands of people from several Quebec regions demonstrated in downtown Montreal against the Conservative government's butchering of employment insurance.

This reform is a serious attack on the most vulnerable workers in our society, most of whom are women. It will also affect families and regions. Once again, despite the demonstration, the Conservatives are not listening to Canadians, and I find that truly sad and deplorable, particularly when I see families and workers trying hard to make ends meet.

This reform strikes a hard blow to the economic health of our regions. In my riding, thousands of people hold seasonal jobs. A large segment of the economy depends on seasonal work, including farming, tourism, construction and forestry. The list is long.

Employment insurance reform will have disastrous consequences for a number of regions. The Conservatives did not assess the impact of such a reform. They are refusing to listen to the protestors who are calling on the government to back down. I am also wondering what happened to their 2011 campaign slogan, “Our region in power”. I have the impression that their slogan should now be “The regions—who cares?”

Why not try to create real jobs and support local initiatives? In short, I am talking about this reform to remind the government that it is a real disaster. As if that were not enough, the government is adding insult to injury with the labour-supported funds.

Another important aspect of the bill is the elimination of the supplementary tax credit for credit unions. Our credit unions play a vital role in our rural communities. Last year, I had the honour of being on the Special Committee on Co-operatives, where my Conservative and Liberal colleagues and I heard testimony that shed light on the remarkable work co-operatives do in our communities.

Perhaps some members were more attentive than others, because I now see that the supplementary tax credit for co-operatives will be eliminated. That will seriously limit the ability of credit unions to compete with large banks, when what the banking sector needs is more competition.

Last year, the Conservatives put an end to the co-operative development initiative and made cuts to the rural secretariat. Now, it is the co-operatives' turn. Do the Conservatives not understand that these changes are going to hit our rural regions hard, both in Quebec and in the rest of the country?

Tabling a budget means making choices. The budget implementation bill shows that the Conservatives are choosing not to support families, workers or our young people. Last year, when we debated the budget 2012 implementation bills—Bills C-38 and C-45—many of my New Democrat colleagues, as well as economic analysts, warned us that we would not have time to understand everything the omnibus bills contained and that the long-term impact would be felt for years to come.

We are finding out the implications of those bills again today, and I am afraid the same thing will happen with Bill C-60. Our children will be the ones to feel the effects of the Conservatives' misguided policies, when they are longer be around to be accountable. I hope they will be willing to listen to our concerns and make the required changes.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to what the member opposite was saying. I must say that I am upset by this government's approach to things.

We know that this bill is not unlike last year's omnibus bills, C-38 and C-45. We know that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance tabled a notice of motion at the Standing Committee on Finance in order to give committee members just five meetings to complete consideration of Bill C-60 and to ensure that clause-by-clause review of the bill is completed by May 27, which is just eight sitting days after the time allocation motion forces passage of the bill at second reading.

Does the hon. member think that five committee meetings will allow enough time to study this bill properly?

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the Bloc Québécois members to voice our views on the Conservatives' recent budget.

Although the federal government claimed it would negotiate pragmatic agreements with the Government of Quebec in good faith, instead it is directly attacking Quebec's unique approach with measures announced in budget 2013 and Bill C-60, the budget implementation bill.

I would like to ask the government what happened to negotiating in good faith. Where were the negotiations on the labour program that will deprive Quebec of millions of dollars? Where were the negotiations on abolishing the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds? Where were the negotiations on higher taxes for the Caisses populaires Desjardins, which will wipe out a portion of Quebec members' dividends? Where were the negotiations following the unanimous vote by the National Assembly to retain Quebec's jurisdiction over securities? Where were the negotiations after the National Assembly's unanimous vote to keep Quebec's approach to homelessness? Where were the negotiations following the unanimous vote by the National Assembly against changes to worker training? Where were negotiations following the unanimous vote by the National Assembly against changes to employment insurance? Where were negotiations when the federal government imposed, once again, the “Ottawa knows best” doctrine to the detriment of Quebec's organizations and Quebec's approach? Where were the negotiations with Quebec when the federal government decided to finance the Lower Churchill project? Where were the negotiations with Quebec following the recognition of the Quebec nation?

There are many eloquent examples of conflicts.

Let us talk about employment insurance. As hon. members will recall, previous budgets have chipped away at the very foundation of our social safety net: government services and the old age security program.

Budget implementation Bills C-38 and C-45 were also a direct attack on seasonal workers and the regional economy of some areas of Quebec.

To justify its employment insurance reform, which harshly penalizes the economy in regions like the Lower St. Lawrence and the Gaspé, the government claims that it is trying to connect unemployed workers to available jobs, but really, it is tearing up its labour market agreement with Quebec, which helps unemployed workers find jobs.

In the last couple of budgets, the federal government has been trying to centralize Canada's economic development at the expense of Quebec's land use strategies, the well-being of the people in the regions and regional economic development. The federal government is trying to gradually strip us of our dignity and our pride in our distinct identity.

With last year's budget, it was clear that the Prime Minister was continuing to build his version of Canada based on his values and interests. He proved that there was no room for Quebec to develop within that model. This year's budget is simply more of the same.

Budget 2013 is a direct attack on the way Quebec does things. As for labour market issues, Ottawa will take away millions of dollars from Quebec that helped the unemployed find jobs.

In its place, the federal government is pushing a program that will force employers and the Quebec government to provide more money if they want the federal government to contribute. In order to hand out cheques with the maple leaf on them, the federal government is ready to axe initiatives that are working well.

Ottawa also wants to bring in a new formula whereby the federal government, the provinces and employers would put in up to $5,000 each to train workers. Although worker training falls under provincial jurisdiction, the federal government is stubbornly forging ahead, to the detriment of our financial services industry. The Quebec Minister of Finance has also criticized this.

Now I would like to talk about labour-sponsored funds. The elimination of the labour-sponsored funds tax credit is another direct attack on Quebec and its workers.

In addition to impoverishing people who are trying to save for their retirement, the federal government is also going to deprive Quebec SMEs of a key economic lever. Labour-sponsored funds are an integral part of Quebec's economic organization, as demonstrated by the fact that $312 million of the $355 million Ottawa plans to take away from workers will be from Quebec.

The Chantier de l'économie sociale has strongly criticized the abolition of the federal tax credit for labour-sponsored venture capital corporations, such as the Fonds de solidarité FTQ and Fondaction CSN. Quebeckers, including unionized workers, use these funds as savings vehicles and commit to helping develop Quebec businesses, such as social economy businesses.

Bill C-60 again includes provisions on securities, as mentioned in the latest budget. The federal government is extending the mandate of the Canadian Securities Transition Office and still insists on creating a Canada-wide securities commission, despite clear decisions from the Quebec Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

In response to the federal government's budget, the Government of Quebec said, “Allowing the federal government to insinuate itself in securities regulation, which is within Québec’s exclusive jurisdiction, is out of the question.”

We have long known that Canada's Minister of Finance dreams of getting his hands on Quebec securities. Even after he was turned down by the Quebec National Assembly and the Supreme Court of Canada, the minister has not concealed his intentions to interfere in Quebec's key financial sector.

I would like to talk about homelessness and how the government does not respect Quebec's way of doing things. In its latest budget, the federal government said it supports the housing first approach, which could threaten community-based, universal homelessness initiatives that currently respond to very real needs in Quebec.

According to the Réseau Solidarité itinérance du Québec, all of the support services for some 50,000 people who are homeless or at risk of being homeless are in jeopardy as a result of the federal government's new policy. The federal government's actions on homelessness are worrisome. In addition to reducing funding, Ottawa wants to impose its housing first approach, which will force Quebec to sacrifice its expertise and the programs tailored to its needs. The National Assembly unanimously denounced Ottawa's attitude and asked that the homelessness strategy be redesigned according to the existing model and in compliance with Quebec's policies.

The Bloc Québécois thinks that the federal government's approach is unacceptable. It could severely hamper the work that people have done over the years on this issue. It would disregard the expertise that has been developed over time to reach the people in need most effectively. This is a direct attack on Quebec's way of doing things.

I would now like to talk about health transfers and social programs. Budget 2013 is one step closer to a $36 billion reduction in federal health transfers. It will have devastating consequences on Quebec's finances because it imposes new agreements for equalization, health transfers and social programs and withdraws money transferred to Quebec for worker training. This is essentially a slap in the face for Quebec. To achieve a zero deficit, the Conservatives, like the Liberals before them, are lobbing the deficit into Quebec's court. Budget 2013 ushers in fiscal imbalance once again.

For all these reasons, and many others, the Bloc Québécois will not support the next federal budget, a budget that is unfair to Quebec, takes aim at Quebec and takes away some of its fundamental powers.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are going through a period in which the government appears to be circumventing the idea of building consensus in the country. It disregards the parliamentary tools at its disposal to assist it in building consensus. On the contrary, it constantly seeks to oppose. The government does not want to discuss. Once again, there is very little debate about a bill as important as Bill C-60, which will amend 59 laws. Previously, there was very little debate on Bills C-38 and C-45, which amended more than 70 laws.

The same thing happened to a number of bills introduced during the 41st Parliament, or ever since the Conservatives have held a majority. They do not want to take the time to listen to the public's concerns and needs. They disregard them. This is a highly ideological government, which does not listen to the people and has difficulty justifying itself.

We cannot continue this way. We absolutely need a government that listens, that responds to needs, that has a long-term vision and that can promote sustainable economic growth. The goal was not to introduce bills full of ad hoc measures, to turn back time in order to eliminate protections previously put in place or to deregulate industries to the point where the invisible hand of the market reigns supreme.

We have seen the consequences of this kind of thinking, which was at the root of the economic crisis of 2008. We do not want to see that happen again. We want something sustainable. We have no lessons to learn from the present government.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, drawing up a budget means making choices. In their 2013 budget, the Conservatives have chosen austerity. This government justifies its decision on the grounds that it wants to wipe out the deficit. All of us here in this House are in favour of wiping out the deficit. Nobody can argue with that, but it is all in the way you do it.

The Conservatives are proposing lean years for everyone in the hope that these cuts will return us to a balanced budget. We believe we must invest in our economy in order to wipe out the deficit. Our economy needs a little help. It needs investment to create jobs and growth. It definitely does not need utterly austere policies like those proposed by this government.

The IMF, the Parliamentary Budget Officer and many renowned economists have warned the government about the harmful effects of its strategy. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says the 2013 budget will eliminate thousands of jobs, cut direct program spending and slow GDP growth. That is not very encouraging, especially for a government that claims to champion employment and the economy.

With Bill C-60, the government is giving us version 3.0 of its omnibus bills. Like Bills C-38 and C-45, Bill C-60 amends nearly 50 acts and contains hundreds of unrelated legislative amendments.

As a parliamentarian, but especially as a citizen, I am shocked to see that this government has not adopted a more co-operative and democratic approach. Its bill is full of inconsistencies and counterproductive measures. However, the government is determined to force it down Canadians' throats without us really having the time to study it or propose improvements.

A very specific example of a counterproductive measure that will harm the economy of my region, the Outaouais, is the elimination of the 15% tax credit for shareholders of labour-sponsored funds. Labour-sponsored funds are essential to the development of Outaouais businesses. On May 2, the Gatineau chamber of commerce organized a press conference to announce its request that the government reverse its decision. The FTQ's Fonds de solidarité alone has invested $125 million in 80 businesses in the region. Those investments have made it possible to create or maintain 6,700 jobs in the Outaouais alone.

The hardest thing to understand in the Conservatives' attitude is that the government will achieve no savings by eliminating the tax credit.

A study conducted by SECOR in 2010 clearly shows that the economic impact of the jobs created and maintained through the investments of these labour-sponsored funds enable the government to recover the tax credits in an average period of three years.

I ask myself the question and I put it to the government: what is the justification for this attack on labour-sponsored funds? These funds create and maintain employment in addition to playing a positive role in our economy.

Eliminating the tax credit will also have a direct impact on small investors. It has benefited some 23,000 people in the Outaouais alone.

By investing $5,000 in a labour-sponsored fund, a taxpayer can currently save up to $750 in federal income tax. Because of this government, 23,000 small investors in the Outaouais will lose a profitable savings vehicle for their retirement and for the economy. This government must open its eyes and reverse its decision.

I have looked through Bill C-60 at length and have found virtually nothing about the measures this government intends to take to combat poverty. In a developed country such as Canada, we would be wrong to believe that poverty is a marginal phenomenon. Poverty exists. It is very real. We see it on the ground, in our ridings. Many of us could describe numerous unfortunate examples of poverty.

Every month, 800,000 Canadians turn to food banks. A growing number of these 800,000 food bank users are working people. Despite earning an income, they cannot always afford to put food on the table. More and more workers are living in poverty, and this government’s policies are obviously to blame to some extent for this situation. This is unacceptable. Fighting poverty must be one of the government’s priorities.

In conclusion, I would like to comment briefly on this government’s repeated attacks on public servants. Last year, it announced that it was eliminating 19,200 jobs, while solemnly swearing that services would not be affected. We subsequently learned that in reality, 29,000 public servants would be losing their jobs and that services to the public would be directly affected.

The Conservatives enjoy depicting public servants as privileged, lazy individuals. That is part of their strategy. They want to pit private sector workers against public servants. We would all do well to close ranks in the face of this government’s attacks on workers in general.

The fact of the matter is that the average pension of a public servant upon retirement is $24,000 a year, or $18,500 for women and $28,000 for men. It is time to stop implying that public servants are rolling in money. Those who are doing very well are the Conservatives’ friends, those who are on the receiving end of favours and generous subsidies while they generate profits totalling millions and sometimes even billions of dollars.

I am thinking here, among other things, of oil companies that are still subsidized to tune of $1.3 billion a year and that often use our soil, our air and our water as a free dumping ground. Natural resource development is a major source of revenue, but development must be done properly. Right now, major polluters are enjoying a free lunch. Things could be done differently, but this government is failing when it comes to fighting for the middle class and for the environment.

As I said in my opening remarks, drawing up a budget means making choices. In budget 2013, the government clearly chose to turn its back on the middle class and on SMEs. Canadians will remember this when the time comes to elect a new government.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that in budget 2013 the government offers a $1 million credit for a $1 trillion industry. Canada should be having a green economy strategy, so we lead in the new economy. We should have a national sustainable energy strategy. We need a comprehensive climate change plan.

Unfortunately, the environment and sustainable development are not government priorities. Recent rankings of environmental performance clearly demonstrate this fact. For example, the 2008 climate change performance index ranked Canada 56th out of 57 countries in terms of tackling emissions. In 2009 and again in 2013, the Conference Board of Canada ranked Canada 15th out of 17 wealthy industrialized nations on environmental performance.

Our world-renowned heritage was then further imperiled by the government's economic action plan 2012 and its draconian omnibus budget bills, Bill C-38 and C-45, which destroyed 50 years of environmental safeguards.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-60 on the budget implementation act.

I would like to focus my speech on the issues, concerns and priorities raised by my constituents during my annual pre-budget consultations. As a member of Parliament, I take seriously my job to represent my constituents' voices in Ottawa. In March of this year, I hosted four town hall meetings: one in Port Moody, one in Coquitlam, one in New Westminster, and a final one by telephone. I also meet with all three mayors and councils in my riding, as I believe it is important to also listen to their priorities and concerns. I also sent out a survey to every household in the riding, asking constituents for their input on spending priorities and economic concerns. In total, I engaged thousands of constituents on what they would like to see in this year's budget.

My constituents' number one priority is health care. I believe Canadians are proud of our health care system, which is the envy of countries around the world. However, we also recognize the importance of ensuring health care remains universally accessible and properly funded. I hear far too many stories from people who have to wait months on end to see a specialist or to receive a vital surgery. The government's hands-off approach to health care is unacceptable. Instead of working with the provinces and territories to address the challenges facing our health care system, the current government unilaterally imposed a funding scheme that actually sees federal health care transfers decrease in the long term.

The high cost of prescriptions is another issue of serious concern, particularly for seniors who must also balance the realities of shrinking pensions and the shortage of affordable housing options. The current government's track record on support for Canada's seniors is dismal. The Conservatives' scheme to raise the age of retirement for the old age security from 65 to 67 years of age is disgraceful.

I also heard from a number of constituents who are frustrated with trying to find quality, affordable child care. Canada's New Democrats understand that a comprehensive national solution is required. That is why we are proposing, with the provinces and the territories, to establish and fund a Canada-wide child care and early learning program.

Another troubling issue we are seeing across our country is youth unemployment rates, which remain stubbornly high, at 13.5% for those under 25, compared to 7% for those over 25. Let us not forget that many students coming out of post-secondary education are saddled with record-high levels of student debt. Where are the jobs of tomorrow? Where are the quality jobs that enable people to support a family or pay down student debt or save for a down payment or save for retirement? Quality full-time jobs are disappearing at an alarming rate, and we are not seeing this issue get the attention it deserves in this budget.

I will take a moment to credit some of the great small businesses operating in my riding, like Resonance Technology, an innovative company on the cutting edge of new technologies. Companies like this are at the forefront of our economy, driving growth and creating jobs. We need more of this. Unfortunately, the reality is that income levels for average Canadians have stagnated while the cost of living continues to increase. From food prices and housing costs to MSP premiums and bridge tolls, British Columbians have been feeling the pinch. However, their tax burden will soon be a bit lighter, thanks to the people's successful efforts to overturn the harmonized sales tax, which was unfairly imposed on B.C. by its provincial government in collaboration with the current federal Conservative government.

I would like to focus on the claim by the Conservatives that this budget would increase funding for infrastructure. In fact, when the numbers are adjusted for inflation, over the next four years federal infrastructure funding will be $4.7 billion lower than it was last year. City officials are asking for a long-term funding arrangement so they can plan for the needs of our growing regions.

Improved transit infrastructure is one of the greatest needs in the Lower Mainland. Residents in Coquitlam and Port Moody have waited well over a decade for the Evergreen Line, which was nicknamed the “nevergreen line”, after years of delays made many people question whether it would ever be built.

The case of the Evergreen Line demonstrates that our governments are not up to the task of working together to meet the transit needs of our growing communities. At every town hall meeting I held, people expressed concern over the government's agenda to degrade environmental protections.

Let us talk about its record. Through last year's massive omnibus budget bills, Bills C-38 and C-45, the Conservative government gutted environmental protections from every act it could think of: the Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and many others. Canadians rallied to save the Experimental Lakes Area, which conducted world-class freshwater research. Unfortunately, the government chose to ignore these calls. A number of my constituents were particularly disturbed by the government's Orwellian attitude towards scientists, environmentalists and public servants. In March, the official opposition introduced a motion in Parliament calling on the government to defend basic scientific freedoms and evidence-based policy. I am sad to say that even the Prime Minister voted against that motion.

The government has been in power for seven years now and its arrogance is beginning to show no bounds. Its unilateral move to shut down the Kitsilano Coast Guard station flew in the face of expert opinion as well as the will of the public and municipal and provincial governments. Despite serious safety concerns raised over shutting down the only Coast Guard station in Vancouver, which is home to the busiest port in Canada, the government rammed through this closure. Consolidation of marine communication traffic services will put B.C.'s coast at greater risk. The government has also cut oil spill response centres. Given the number and scale of proposed resource development projects, this is the worst time to be cutting enforcement monitoring and emergency response.

This budget has announced $108 million in cuts to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. While the government claims that this will be found through efficiencies like travel and printing, we know this will have a serious impact on DFO front-line services, including its ability to carry out its mandate to protect wild fish. Last year's cuts left DFO with only five offices in B.C., and the smallest staff level since 1983.

It has been almost seven months since Cohen's recommendations were released and we have yet to hear a single word from the government on how it will respond. Following the $26 million Cohen report, the government should be responding to the 75 recommendations rather than turning its back on B.C. salmon and fish habitat.

All of the concerns I have highlighted speak to the serious feeling of neglect that has been brewing on the west coast. The Conservative government has been ignoring the priorities of British Columbians for far too long.

I would like to conclude my remarks on the budget by focusing on a theme that was frequently raised at pre-budget consultations. There is a feeling of restlessness and discontent among the electorate with the state of our democracy. I heard much criticism on the way the government has centralized power, limited debate and tried to marginalize the role of Parliament, not to mention the muzzling of scientists and quality information. Taxpayers are frustrated with being on the hook for the unelected, unaccountable and under-investigated Senate.

Principles anchored within the Senate's mission, such as the protection of minorities and balancing the executive and legislative branches of government, are important principles, but they must be addressed through accountable and democratic means. Abolishing the Senate is part of the NDP's broader and progressive vision for democratic reform. This means reforming our electoral system to ensure that Parliament reflects the political preferences of Canadians. New Democrats have long advocated for a system of proportional representation. A reformed electoral Senate would go a long way toward better representing Canadians in Parliament. It could reverse dismally low voter turnout rates and improve representation of women and minorities.

Canadians are hungry for change. Canadians are looking for leaders who are not afraid to tackle the issues facing our communities and our regions. This was an underwhelming budget. I believe Canadians want to see their federal government build healthy, sustainable communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-60, Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1. However, this piece of legislation does not address Canadians' real concerns.

Ever since the Conservatives’ 2013 budget was unveiled, my constituents have been calling me to say that they feel isolated and neglected by this government’s economic measures.

I have to say that I feel quite privileged to be able to speak to this bill, given that the Conservatives have imposed time allocation for the thirty-second time, which is surely a record for Canada. At least I have the opportunity to voice my opinion on the subject.

Unfortunately, we have become accustomed to Conservative bills that lack depth. Instead of actually being concerned about ensuring our economic recovery, creating stable jobs and tackling the growing debt levels of Canadian households, the Conservatives are proposing austerity measures that will kill jobs. These measures will mean a higher cost of living for Canadian families and will stifle economic growth.

For instance, there is nothing in Bill C-60 to deal with household debt in Canada, which is currently estimated at a record level of 167% of disposal income. That is a staggering number.

The Conservatives’ economic agenda does not address the needs of Canadians. Canadians need measures that are geared toward creating quality jobs. The NDP will be voting against budget 2013 and the budget implementation bill, unless they are reworked to take into account the real priorities of Canadian families.

While I do agree with some of the measures contained in this budget, I have to say that, since I have been a member of this House, the Conservatives have refused to split budget bills into components that we can vote on separately, and thus let Canadians know, through a transparent process, which measures we support and which ones we do not.

I would like to single out several measures in this budget that I think are worthwhile in order to let people know exactly which ones I consider to be important. I will then tell you which budgetary provisions I think completely miss the mark.

Budget 2013 provides for two tax credits that I endorse: one for adoption-related expenses and one for first-time claimants of the charitable donations tax credit. I believe that these are positive measures. Furthermore, the budget streamlines the process for approving tax relief for Canadian Forces members and police officers, which I strongly support. It extends the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for the manufacturing sector. It includes measures to facilitate the collection of unpaid taxes and taxes sitting in tax havens and to streamline Tax Court of Canada procedures. It provides for changes to the GST and HST that are generally positive. Lastly, it calls for reducing the general preferential tariff, the GPT, on sporting equipment and baby clothing. These are sound measures, and I am not afraid to say so.

However, the Conservatives will not split up the budget and instead are forcing us to vote on a mammoth bill, as was the case in 2012 and 2011, which prevents me, as an MP, from voicing my true opinion of the budget to my constituents. I find it very troubling that I am unable to do so. However I do know that the Conservatives will seize the opportunity to say that we are voting against these measures when we ask any questions. Incredible.

I would now like to turn my attention to some of the important issues raised by Bill C-60 which is chock-full of various measures.

This budget contains tax increases for Canadians. It calls for changes to the bargaining mandate of the Treasury Board and 49 crown corporations. It proposes changes to the temporary foreign worker program, as well as changes related to citizenship and immigration. It announces the merger of the Canadian International Development Agency with Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. It highlights the Conservative government’s ongoing failure to address the challenges facing aboriginal peoples and the lack of viable, concrete job-creation measures for Canadian youth, the segment of the population hardest hit by the economic downturn.

Bill C-60 as tabled amends 49 laws and includes new legislation along with complex provisions containing myriad details and programs that will affect Canadians, the very people who elected us to establish a more just society and bring about wealth and prosperity for all Canadians.

For the sake of the public, we have a duty to weigh the major issues that this bill targets, but it will be very difficult to accomplish this in such a short period of time. The fact of the matter is that the Conservatives are giving us a mere four days to debate this mammoth bill.

On top of everything else, we have just learned that the Minister of Finance has asked the Standing Committee on Finance to set aside only five days to study the bill.

The committee that is supposed to conduct an in-depth review of the bill will have a mere five days to tackle this job. That is outrageous.

The NDP opposes Bill C-60, not only because of the measures it contains, but also because the process lacks transparency and is unethical from a parliamentary standpoint. Bill C-60 contains a broad range of measures that warrant careful consideration, but instead, the Conservatives have tabled another omnibus bill, much like Bills C-38 and C-45 that were brought in last year. Tabling such a wide-ranging bill and imposing such a tight deadline for review undermines the very nature of Parliament, as members do not have the opportunity to learn everything they need to know about the bill and its ramifications.

Unfortunately, it has become commonplace to say that such actions weaken the nature of Parliament. Yesterday, while I was knocking on doors in my riding, I talked for 20 or 25 minutes to a man in Dorval, whose name is John and who is 50 or 60 years old. He told me that he had always voted to do his duty as a citizen but that he had become cynical in the past two years. He told me that he was dismayed and that he no longer believed in the parliamentary process because of our government. I was astounded and did not know what to say to him. I am not cynical, but I had a hard time finding good arguments, because I, too, think that what is happening in Canada is not reasonable and not healthy.

Moreover, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has pointed out several times that members of Parliament do not have access to the information they need to exercise their role of oversight. For the third time, the Conservatives are undermining the democratic process inherent in Parliament and trying to escape the watchful eyes of parliamentarians and the public.

I would like to point out another important concern. The former Parliamentary Budget Officer clearly indicated that the cuts announced in the 2013 budget are not necessary in order to re-establish a structural surplus. In his opinion, the 2013 budget will eliminate thousands of jobs, reduce direct program spending and slow the growth of Canada's GDP.

There is evidence. According to estimates by the new Parliamentary Budget Officer, the 2012 budget, the 2012 budget update and the 2013 budget will lead to the loss of 67,000 jobs by 2017 and a 0.57% drop in the GDP. Based on these facts, the Conservatives' 2013 budget will raise the unemployment rate in Canada. It is unfortunate, because when unemployment rates are high, the economy runs slowly. I wonder what logic the government is using when it talks about the economy.

The Conservatives love to boast about their job creation record, yet 1.4 million Canadians are without work and 240,000 more young people are unemployed than before the recession. Despite that, the Conservatives' Bill C-60 offers no job creation measures.

As the official opposition's youth caucus president, I am particularly concerned with Canada's youth and young workers. As a result, the rest of my speech—which is not much longer—will focus on the younger generation that is ignored by the Conservative government.

In today's labour market, there is a desperate lack of jobs for young Canadians aged 15 to 24. A study by TD Economics revealed that a young person who is currently unemployed or under-employed will be financially scarred for 18 years. This young person, who wants to work and often has an extensive education, not only has a problem finding work, but will be affected in the future with reduced earning potential. Right now, this young person has no job and cannot invest in the economy. As I said, it will take this young person 18 years to overcome the economic deficit that is being created today. This is not the way to make the economy work.

For these young people in their 20s, this means putting off purchasing their own property, having children later, needing more time to pay off their debt and earning lower salaries. That is what the Conservative government is offering our young people at this time.

Combining the underemployment crisis and unemployment among young people with the tax hikes announced in budget 2013, with Bill C-60, the Conservative government is in fact reducing my generation's purchasing power.

Although the Conservatives promised not to raise taxes, their budget includes new tax hikes for Canadians on almost everything, from hospital parking to credit unions, safety deposit boxes and labour sponsored investment funds, not to mention bicycles and strollers. These tax hikes will cost Canadians $7.8 billion over the next five years.

Why did the Conservatives promise not to raise taxes if they knew for a fact they were going to raise them by several billion dollars? Budget 2013 is based on an ideology that is harmful to Canadians. Although economists agree that austerity measures undermine growth, the Conservatives are determined to impose these backward-thinking measures in order to achieve their political agenda of cutting the deficit by 2015.

I see my time is up. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to finish and giving me a chance to speak to this bill. I will now take questions. However, I would like to emphasize that, although there are some good measures here, it is unfortunate that we have to vote on everything at once.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to comment on this budget. I listened attentively to those who spoke before me. I believe that the debate will generate some passion, as we just heard in a few of the previous comments.

To begin with, I would like to point out that this is the 32nd time that the Conservative government has taken away our right to comment in the House. It is truly a scandal, and it must stop. It is essential that members be allowed to give their speeches, say what they have to say, and speak about their needs and the problems society will have to face if a budget like this one is adopted. Under this budget, the Conservatives are increasing taxes and reducing services.

I would like to comment on a number of things such as family, freedom and poverty. The budget cannot avoid addressing matters like these. I would also like to talk about job creation.

Even though the government quotes figures and tweaks them from one year to the next, they never give us a start date for how these figures were calculated, and the fact remains that jobs are being lost. Jobs have been lost at White Birch in Quebec. I could mention other companies, like Electrolux, where jobs have been lost. Work may be moving from one province to another, but we are after all living in a confederation and jobs need to be created everywhere. The youth unemployment rate has spiked significantly, and this should compel us to do something.

What the government gives with the right hand, it takes away with the left. I believe that many of my colleagues have been able to demonstrate this. On one hand, a fund is established to help young families, and tax credits are made available for artistic activities; but on the other, a surcharge is imposed on products that cross the border, which takes back the money that these families had saved from their reduced taxes. They are therefore disguised tax hikes.

Just now, the member for Ottawa—Orléans took the floor. I wonder whether he lives on the same planet as my colleagues and I. He said that cuts have been made in a compassionate manner.

Cutting jobs and employee salaries is not a very compassionate thing to do. I will explain how it was done. Those whose jobs were being cut received a letter telling them that jobs would be eliminated in their department.

They were told that X number of positions would be eliminated, but were not immediately told which jobs would be eliminated. Is that what the Conservatives mean by "being compassionate"? Sometimes, employees were asked to choose from among the duties and work being done, what positions were less useful than others. Is that what they call "being compassionate"? That is not what I would call it. There is one small restriction.

This budget is a direct attack on labour funds. In Quebec, the CSN and the FTQ have labour funds. Not so long ago, I sent my constituents a ten-percenter and the highest response rate I ever received had to do with labour funds and the FTQ. These funds allow people to deduct 15% extra from their taxes to make some savings. What the right hand gave away, the left took back, yet again. This additional deduction to which these people were entitled has been taken away.

Who contributed to these funds? They were often people whose wages were very low. It enabled them to save about $1000 a year. Year after year, they would try to save an extra $1,000. Then, by retirement, they would have saved a total of roughly $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000. They saved their entire lives.

Before being a member of Parliament, I worked in an organization. I met people who were earning $30,000 or less per year. In spite of this, they managed to put a little money aside to invest in this terrific fund.

The 15% tax break for the labour fund contributions encouraged them to save their pennies. These are the people who are being attacked. The labour funds, whether the CSN’s or the FTQ’s, are being attacked.

Labour force training is also being attacked. We succeeded in getting something into the budget that says that a company can now deduct $5,000 for training if it invests that much in training.

What companies are we talking about?

In Quebec, there is the 1% labour force training program. Now none of the small companies will be able to make that deduction because once again, this budget helps the big players, but not the small ones. Small businesses will not be able to invest $5,000 in labour force training to match what the government might give. This skews the debate. The companies lose out and labour force training will suffer. Workers, individuals and competitiveness, when all is said and done, will lose out.

I do not know whether the government thought about this aspect, but it is essential; the less training one has, the less competitive one is and the less competitive, the lower the sales, the lower demand for the product and you begin to go under. Our leader has pointed out that in Canada, small businesses and manufacturers have lost a great deal in recent years.

For 2013 and 2014, the budget forecast a deficit of approximately $16.5 billion. In reality, this will be $18.7 billion. Despite all these cuts, Canada's deficit is growing. People are being fooled when they tighten their belts and deprive themselves of everything. It might be worth asking which people are really depriving themselves.

Everything is really upside-down. They are going to pick the pockets of the smallest companies to pay for the majority, rather than the other way around. What are taxes for? Why were they created? Taxes are collected to redistribute wealth through infrastructure, worker training and various other mechanisms. When roads are built, a group of individuals pays and it is all redistributed.

Clearly, the company for which a four-lane road is built does not pay for it. Nor does it pay for the time its trucks spend on the road to deliver a product from point A to point B. People pay for it through taxes. They pay out of their pockets, and they are going to pay more and more. The sales tax was lowered, but the prices of products entering the country are going up.

I have been putting together a file for a year now. This bill follows on from two others, Bill C-38, which was introduced a year ago in the spring, and Bill C-45, which was next in line. In the latter, employment insurance was hard hit. The bill tried to define suitable employment and discarded the previous definition. What we have is the party in power deciding what is suitable for them.

Mr. Speaker, when you retire one day, we will decide for you what you are going to do. You will be able to do something other than what you are doing now. In fact, you will be able to do many things, because you are highly skilled in several areas. Others will therefore decide what is suitable for you.

Some extremely strange things have happened: people who worked in agriculture, for example, being offered jobs washing dishes in restaurants. I think everyone is aware of these strange goings-on.

I would like to talk about a letter I received from the elected representatives in the north shore region, who tell us that the employment insurance reform—and hence the consequences of these notorious mammoth budgets—runs counter to the interests of north shore workers. It will completely undermine the economy.

People remember what the government said during the last election: “power to the regions”, yet for now, the regions have been totally abandoned, and our elected representatives are saying so.

Next week, people from Prince Edward Island, including the minister, will be coming here to speak to us about employment insurance. The people of Prince Edward Island and the Atlantic provinces are being thoroughly swindled. Seventy percent of all seasonal workers are in the Atlantic provinces.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today, May 2, two years after the NDP was elected as the official opposition. It has bee two years, but this budget implementation bill still contains the worst of the Conservative policies, even though this legislation should only include budget measures. Therefore, I will oppose this bill because of its content and because of the process.

Bill C-60, which implements parts of budget 2013, increases the tax burden on Canadians with tax increases for credit unions and small businesses. It also includes higher tariffs on thousands of products. It gives Treasury Board very broad powers allowing it to intervene in the collective bargaining process and to impose terms and conditions of employment on non-unionized crown corporation employees. It also amends the Investment Canada Act to significantly reduce the number of takeovers that are subject to review. Finally, it proposes a symbolic but inadequate solution to the flawed approach to the temporary foreign worker program.

To fully understand the problems with Bill C-60, we must go back to its source, the 2013 budget. That budget did not include anything really new, nor did it propose anything satisfactory regarding employment. It continued to target services provided to Canadians by trying to shrink the size of government. In this budget, the government tried to pull a fast one with funds allocated to worker training, and by pretending that infrastructure funds were going to increase when in fact they have been reduced, as my NDP colleagues found out. It is very important to point out that what was announced as new money is in fact a budget cut.

This budget also targets workers' funds and all those who benefit from such funds, including small investors and businesses in our regions. Moreover, the budget does not take seriously the problems facing producers, such as the labour shortage. The changes made to the employment insurance program did not help at all, and many farmers and seasonal entrepreneurs in my riding are having a hard time hiring skilled labour this year. They worry about the impact that these changes will have on them. The budget also does not do anything to help them with risk management.

The budget also shows a lack of conviction regarding the implementation of the Emerson report recommendations. That report, commissioned by this Conservative government, was drafted by the industry. The fact that its recommendations were not fully implemented means the Conservatives are not clearly siding with the aerospace industry, even though that industry creates thousands of jobs in a riding like Mirabel.

Again, with this budget, the government missed an opportunity to reverse its decision to slash old age security and many other programs. It is really unfortunate that this budget does absolutely nothing for the citizens of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

By amending close to 50 different acts, Bill C-60 follows the same pattern as omnibus Bills C-38 and C-45.

While it is smaller than similar bills we have seen from this government, it still amends 49 pieces of legislation, which is a lot. The mere fact that the bill has fewer pages does not mean it is no worse. In any case, what Canadians want is not something that is no worse. They want something better. To achieve that, measures should be proposed properly, separately, and they should be debated fairly, based on their merits. They should be proposed responsibly in this Parliament.

Omnibus bills like this one and all the other budget implementation bills are fundamentally bad for democracy and for our Parliament.

With Bill C-60, the Conservatives are trying, for the third time, to circumvent parliamentary and public oversight. Canadians deserve better than a Conservative omnibus bill that adds to their cost of living and does not create jobs.

I want to be clear. I will oppose this omnibus bill because it is altogether bad for the Canadian economy. Regardless of what the Conservatives are saying, budget 2013 and Bill C-60 are measures that will slow down the Canadian economy instead of boosting it.

Budget 2013 cuts thousands of jobs, cuts program spending and weakens GDP growth. The Conservatives' plan, starting with budget 2012, will lead to the loss of 67,000 jobs by 2017 and a 0.57% drop in GDP. That is far from the prosperity the Conservatives promised.

I want to talk about something other than figures, but I do want to say that I did not make them up. They came from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who was appointed by this government.

As if it were not enough that this budget does nothing for the economy, with this bill, the government continues to go after workers. The bill gives extensive powers to the Treasury Board to intervene in the collective bargaining process and impose terms and conditions of employment on crown corporations. This interference in the negotiating process is very disappointing. The Conservatives are continuing their direct attack on collective bargaining. What a perfect example of doublespeak. They talk about independence for crown corporations, but they want to impose their austerity ideology and they are crushing that independence by interfering in the management of crown corporations.

I also want to mention that workers are not the only ones who will be negatively affected by this bill. The Conservatives really seem to have it in for the regions. Their tax hikes for credit unions and small businesses represent a direct attack on my riding's economy. Credit unions and SMEs are an important part of our communities' economic and social fabric. The Conservatives are taxing them to benefit the major banks and big businesses.

They amended the Investment Canada Act to considerably reduce the number of takeovers subject to review. That means that businesses outside of major urban centres will no longer be reviewed and, without oversight from the government, could be taken over by foreign companies.

Furthermore, how can we forget their ill-advised EI reform, which targets seasonal workers, who are essential to rural economies, or their attack on labour-sponsored funds, which are supported by workers, investors, unions and businesses, especially in the regions?

It is clear that the budget does nothing for my riding.

In conclusion, the government is trying to say that it is doing a good job managing the economy. In this budget, there is nothing for workers and nothing for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel. People deserve much more, and I hope to have the opportunity to give them more in 2015.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, today we are dealing with Bill C-60, the first Conservative omnibus bill following its 2013 budget. It is a bit less abusive than Bill C-38 and Bill C-45 from last year, but it is still an omnibus measure, lumping together various unrelated matters. By my count, at least 18 different government portfolios are implicated.

At the end of the day, the government will force a single vote on all of that all at once. That renders the vote so meaningless, because it cuts across so many unrelated disciplines. Again, democracy is compromised in the process.

There are some items for sure in Bill C-60 which people could generally support: better allowances for veterans, for example; dealing with the adoption tax credit; more incentives for charitable giving; the extension of capital cost allowance; and additions to the gas tax transfer.

However, these positive things are intermingled, unfortunately, with many very negative measures, especially large tax increases that will hit and hurt middle-class Canadians in particular, and we cannot and we will not support those negative measures.

Budget 2013 is crafted to feed several false illusions. The first of those is the mythical notion that the Conservatives are the competent economic managers that they claim to be, but let us look at the facts.

When they took office in 2006, they inherited from their Liberal predecessors 10 straight years of balanced budgets, an annual surplus that was running at the rate of $13 billion every year, lower debt, lower taxes, low and stable interest rates, a sound and solid Canada pension plan, steadily dropping employment insurance premiums, annual economic growth rates of 3% or better, the best banking system in the world, the best ever transfer payments to provinces and territories, progressive investments in child care, skills and learning, science and innovation, environmental integrity, infrastructure, trade and three and a half million net new jobs. That is what the Conservatives inherited. That is what was handed to them as a starting point in 2006.

Just as an interesting historical sidebar, before the Conservatives inherited 10 years of Liberal balanced budgets and robust surpluses, the last time a Conservative government actually balanced a budget for Canada was 101 years ago in 1912. The prime minister at the time was Robert Borden, originally a school teacher, as a matter of historical fact. He, too, inherited his surplus from a Liberal predecessor, namely Sir Wilfrid Laurier, but sadly, he managed to maintain it for only one year before dropping into deficit.

The current Conservative government has behaved in a similar manner through excessive spending and reckless budgeting. Between 2006 and 2008, they put Canada back into the red again before, not because of, the recession, which hit in the latter part of 2008, and they have not balanced the books every since.

In budget 2013, the Conservatives claim they will eliminate the deficit hocus-pocus by 2015. Is that not convenient? Just on the eve of the next federal election they are projecting a balanced budget. A close look at their financial plans provides ample reason to be just a little bit suspicious. Here are some of the fiscal tricks.

First, they use rosy growth estimates. To puff up government revenues, the Conservatives have based their fiscal planning on optimistic projections about economic growth. They ignore the reality that in years just passed, their numbers have never ever been correct. Time and time again, their initial forecast has had to be downgraded, as both the International Monetary Fund and the Bank of Canada have just done once again in this last month.

Second, they use deficient reserves. To create the illusion of more financial flexibility and strength than they really have, the Conservatives have lowballed the reserves that should be in place to serve as fiscal shock absorbers for Canadians against unpleasant future economic surprises. The amounts set aside should grow in the outer years because the risk is larger in the outer years, but the Conservative government has foolishly flatlined its reserves going forward, meaning it is not protecting adequately against future risk.

Third, they use exaggerated lapses. When a government department does not use all the budget in any given year that is given to it, the excess money naturally lapses back to the central treasury. The Conservatives in their budget are counting on very large lapses over the next several years. In fact, that is worked right into their arithmetic. In other words, they are planning to make big announcements of big new spending plans but never actually investing the money.

Fourth, they use excessive optimism about catching those tax cheats. While cracking down on those who do not pay their rightful taxes is an absolute necessity, the Conservatives claim of a balanced budget depends heavily on quickly collecting billions in unpaid taxes, and that seems highly improbable at a time when they are chopping the resources needed in the revenue department to go after those tax cheaters.

Fifth, they use big program cuts. For big programs like infrastructure, the government claims to be increasing its investment, but any hypothetical increase would actually occur only years down the road, beyond the mandate of this Parliament, sometime in the latter part of this decade, conveniently well after 2015. It is a trick that is called multi-year bundling and back-end loading. When the government has nothing to announce, it rolls a bunch of years together and pretends it is going to spend money five or ten years down the road while it actually cuts in the short term. That is happening here. In reality, the build Canada infrastructure budget has been cut by $1.5 billion this year, $1.5 billion next year and $1 billion in the year after that. Any hypothetical increase is only well after 2015.

Sixth, they are claiming before proving. Using all of the tricks that I have just mentioned to concoct the false notion of a balanced budget by 2015, the Conservatives will claim that they have met their fiscal objective just before they call an election and, importantly, before proof to the contrary can become available. In the normal financial cycle, the audit report on the government's books for 2015 will not get published until much later, that is well into 2016, long after any election has come and gone. So much for the Conservative illusion of fiscal and economic competence.

Their second illusion is that they really care about jobs and job training and they boast about their proposed new jobs grant. The Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development mentions it in the House almost every day, but again it is fiction. It is spin. It is make-believe. It does not exist.

What exists are labour market agreements, and they have existed since the late 1990s. They are job training agreements between the Government of Canada and all the provinces. The latest versions of these labour market agreements were negotiated about five years ago, and they are worth now about $2.5 billion all together. Federal money is regularly transferred every year by the Government of Canada to the provinces. The provinces use those funds to tailor job training and labour market programs and services that suit their local circumstances. The provinces are in charge of the design. That is what exists now.

The Conservative government wanted to appear to be doing something about skills and jobs in the 2013 budget. People without jobs and jobs without people is one of Canada's biggest economic problems at the present time. The government wanted to look as if it were aware of that and doing something about it.

However, the government was not prepared to invest any new money to try and make an actual difference in terms of job training. What it did do was create an illusion of action and the fiction it was doing something about jobs and training. What it is basically proposing to do is claw back the $2.5 billion per year labour market money that it now sends to the provinces and renegotiate it with provincial governments. That is all. It amounts to recycling existing money. There is nothing more. There is nothing new. There is no additional federal investment.

The provinces will need to contribute more and so will the private sector. That may actually serve to reduce the extent of job training in some sectors and some provinces, because some of those other partners, the provinces or the private sector, may not be able to match the federal dollars. Even the provincial treasurer in Alberta has made the comment that he does not know whether Alberta would want to participate in that kind of initiative.

The bottom line here is that there is no new money and no additional federal investment in training. It is an illusion to try to create the impression that something new is happening when it is not. That is tragic, especially for young Canadians looking for some hope and opportunity.

Here are the numbers. More than 212,000 fewer young Canadians are working today than just before the recession began in 2008. The youth unemployment rate is a very stubborn 14.2%. That is nearly twice the rate for other Canadians. The actual number is 404,000 jobless young people. Worse still, another 171,000 have simply given up and dropped out of the labour market altogether. The government and the budget do nothing but shuffle the deck chairs on the Titanic. It is simply not good enough.

Another fiction, the third one, is the government's bogus claim that is does not increase taxes. That assertion is completely false, and that is one of the key reasons we cannot support Bill C-60. It increases taxes, especially the tax burden of middle-class Canadians and all those who are working so hard to join the middle class. It happens in dozens of nefarious ways. New hidden Conservative taxes on safety deposit boxes total $40 million a year. On certain medical services, it is $2 million a year. New Conservative taxes on credit unions amount to $75 million a year. It goes on.

However, there are three hidden Conservative tax hikes that hit especially hard at the middle class. They are taxes on small business dividends, taxes on payrolls and taxes on imported consumer goods.

First, the Conservative small business tax, a new tax burden on small businesses, will absorb $550 million every year, taking it from small businesses and hurting the middle class.

The second new Conservative tax is the EI payroll tax, which will suck up $600 million every year in higher EI premiums, again hurting the middle class. By contrast, facing a job challenge in the 1990s, a Liberal government did not increase EI payroll taxes. We in fact cut them. We cut them 12 consecutive times and we cut them by 40%. Employers and employees saved billions of dollars and 3.5 million net new jobs were generated. The Conservative government's record is the opposite of that.

Finally, the third tax increase that we object to is the new Conservative increase of tariff taxes, taxes on imports, which will take about $333 million every year from middle-class Canadians.

The cost of vacuum cleaners will go up by 5%. Bicycles will go up by 4.5%. Baby carriages will go up by 3%. Plastic school supplies will go up by 3.5%. Scissors will go up by 11%. Ovens, cooking stoves and ranges will go up by 3%. For coffee makers, the cost will increase by 4%. On wigs, especially cosmetic wigs for cancer patients, the cost will go up by a whopping 15.5%. The cost of USB drives will go up by 6%. On blankets, the cost will go up by 5%. On toothbrushes, the cost will go up by 2%. On pillows, the cost will go up by 6%. On alarm clocks, the cost will go up by 6%. There are dozens and dozens of imported products.

The government's excuse for this is that it only wants to provide these higher tariffs in order to give a benefit to a lower-income country overseas. However, the reality is, when we put on these tariff increases, the country overseas does not levy the tax and does not pay the tax. The tax is levied in Canada and it is paid by Canadians. The burden is on average middle-income Canadian families. This is a self-inflicted cost burden in Canada, which is why we cannot support it.

When all of these measures I mentioned are fully implemented, as well as some other taxes that are buried in this legislation, the burden will add up to more than $2 billion per year in new Conservative taxes that are being levied on Canadians. The largest portion of that burden will fall squarely on the backs of middle-class families.

For substantive reasons of public policy today, we will not vote for these measures. Also, because the government is trying to hide these new taxes and deny them, we cannot sanction such deceit. Liberals oppose Bill C-60.

Therefore, I move, seconded by the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures (Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1), because it:

A) raises taxes on middle class Canadians in order to pay for the Conservatives' wasteful spending;

B) fails to reverse the government's decision to raise tariffs on items such as baby carriages, bicycles, household water heaters, space heaters, school supplies, ovens, coffee makers, wigs for cancer patients, and blankets;

C) raises taxes on small business owners by $2.3 billion over the next 5 years, directly hurting 750,000 Canadians and risking Canadian jobs;

D) raises taxes on credit unions by $75 million per year, which is an attack on rural Canadians and Canada's rural economy;

E) adds GST/HST to certain healthcare services, including medical work that victims of crime need to establish their case in court;

F) fails to provide a youth employment strategy to help struggling young Canadians find work; and

G) ignores the pressing requirements of aboriginal peoples.

Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

moved that Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in support of Bill C-15, which aims to amend the National Defence Act to strengthen Canada’s military justice and grievance systems.

This legislation is a comprehensive package of amendments that will enhance the military justice system, clarify the roles and responsibilities of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal and improve the military police complaints process and military grievance system.

As a former practitioner of the law, Mr. Speaker, you could vouch for the fact that the modernization of law, including the justice system for the Canadian Forces, is an extremely important undertaking and is a long time overdue.

As the House has heard throughout its considerable consideration of the bill, the military justice system is essential to maintaining the discipline, efficiency and morale of the Canadian Armed Forces.

The requirement for a separate, unique system of military justice has long been endorsed by Parliament and the Supreme Court, and is further recognized in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The framework of Canada's military justice system has also been validated in two independent reviews. The first was conducted by Chief Justice Lamer and was tabled in the House in 2003. A second review, by Chief Justice LeSage, was tabled last year following the introduction of the bill.

The amendments proposed in Bill C-15 were developed to address those recommendations that are still outstanding from the Lamer report.

Bill C-15 encapsulates the government's previous legislative efforts to address these recommendations, namely through Bill C-7, Bill C-45 and Bill C-41, so the bill is essentially in its fourth iteration.

The content of the bill has been thoroughly debated and reviewed. It has been before the House, where some 100 speakers from all parties participated in the debate. Most recently, the Standing Committee on National Defence met eight times in February in examining the bill. Three sessions were devoted to clause-by-clause review of the proposed legislation, and the committee heard from 16 expert witnesses from the Department of National Defence, the Canadian Armed Forces and non-governmental organizations.

I want to take this opportunity to thank my House colleagues and the witnesses for their diligence and dedication in the study of the bill.

I would also be remiss if I did not note the leadership of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, the member for Ajax—Pickering and members of the committee, as well as Colonel Mike Gibson, who has dedicated tremendous time and effort in bringing the bill forward to this point.

The bill before the House today will make several important changes to the National Defence Act and enhance the military justice system and grievance framework. These amendments include setting out a wider and more flexible range of sentencing options, enhancing the treatment of victims by introducing victim impact statements at courts martial, and clarifying the process and timelines for future independent reviews of the military justice system.

I am pleased to say that members from both sides of the House are generally in support of enhancing the military justice system and grievance process. However, during second reading and in committee, it became apparent that misconceptions regarding certain provisions have persisted, specifically, those provisions related to criminal record exemptions and the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff’s authority to provide instructions to the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal during investigations.

I would like to take this opportunity to make the government's position clear on these issues and to put to rest any misunderstandings that could further delay the implementation of this important legislation.

Let me begin by quickly addressing concerns related to the criminal records aspect in clause 75 of the bill, because it seemed to be the focal point of many of the comments here in the House and in committee.

While summary trials are necessary to maintain discipline within the Canadian Armed Forces, clause 75 specifically recognizes that most summary trial conviction offences are not sufficiently severe to justify a criminal record for the disciplined military members within the meaning of the Criminal Records Act.

Specifically, this clause ensures that service members would no longer be required to apply for a record suspension, also known as a pardon, for convictions that would not constitute an offence for the purposes of the Criminal Records Act. That is to say, it simply would not show on a person's record upon leaving the Canadian Forces if he or she has been convicted under one of the offences specified in the act.

In response to concerns under the scope of exempted convictions, the committee accepted the government's proposal to amend the bill to expand the list of exemptions. National Defence estimates that this provision would exempt approximately 95% of summary trial convictions from resulting in a record within the meaning of the Criminal Records Act and eliminate any undue hardship to members transitioning to civilian life. Therefore, most would leave the Canadian Forces with an unblemished record if convicted under one of the mentioned offences.

In committee, members also expressed concerns over a provision to give the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff the statutory authority to provide case-specific direction to the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal during investigations. The intent of this provision is to statutorily define the relationship between the Provost Marshal and the chain of command and to enhance the transparency and accountability of military police investigations.

Unlike civilian police forces, Canada's military police may be asked to operate and conduct investigations in operational theatres, as we have seen in places like Afghanistan, where active combat is taking place. Taking this into account, there may be the need in exceptional circumstances for the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff to issue special instructions to the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal. I say this because surely an operational combat zone would qualify as an exceptional circumstance. Special instructions would balance the investigative independence of the Provost Marshal with the safety and security of those involved in the investigation and the operational imperatives of the Canadian Armed Forces.

This bill would establish in statute a mechanism for issuing such instructions, thereby achieving three objectives. Firstly, maximizing accountability by identifying a single authority for such instructions, namely, the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff. Secondly, establishing a statutory requirement for such instructions to be issued in writing, therefore improving transparency. Finally, further increasing transparency by requiring such instructions to be made public, unless the Provost Marshal considers that it would not be in the best interests of the administration of justice to do so.

There are also provisions here where one can envision that information, particularly intelligence that was passed to the Canadian Forces by allies, would be protected in such circumstances.

In closing, our troops perform extraordinary tasks each day—often at great risk to themselves—in service of our country. They need—and deserve—to know that they can have confidence in the fairness and strength of the military justice system that governs and protects them.

This legislation before the House today has been years in the making. In fact, if we trace its history, it goes back to a period before this government came to office. The amendments have now had the benefit of a full second reading debate in the House of Commons and committee study. I strongly urge the House to support implementing these important provisions without delay.

It will benefit the men and women in uniform of the Canadian Forces and their families. It will benefit these extraordinary Canadians who do so much on behalf of our country at home and abroad.

Fisheries and Oceans

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and for the Asia-Pacific Gateway]

I am surprised, Mr. Speaker, that the member would be opposed to focusing DFO on the protection of Canada's commercial, recreational, and aboriginal fisheries. That is exactly what we did in Bill C-38 and Bill C-45 and we are continuing to focus on that. As we put together the policy framework to support those changes, we are engaging and talking to our key stakeholders.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, on Earth Day, it is important to talk about clean, safe and sustainable water. The UN declared 2013 the UN International Year of Water Cooperation to raise awareness about sustainability and the challenges of water management because of the increase in demand for access, allocation and services.

This campaign is juxtaposed with the Conservatives Bill C-45 and the elimination of most of Canada's lakes and rivers from the Navigable Waters Protection Act. To fight the harmful impact of this legislation, I will introduce a private member's bill today that will put the Cowichan River back under the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

I would also like to give thanks to my constituents, who are fighting to prevent the dumping of contaminated soil in a local quarry in the Shawnigan Lake watershed. Local aquifers and watersheds significantly impact the local wildlife, health and economy, and a potential contamination could be disastrous.

We understand the importance of protecting our local water sources and the ecological balance for future generations. Happy Earth Day.

Opposition Motion—First Nations, Metis and Inuit

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague about the issue of the nation-to-nation relationship. With Bill C-45, we see the stripping of basic environmental protections on waterways all across first nations territory in order to help the Conservatives' friends in the oil industry, a complete disregard of basic first nations rights that have been affirmed in court decision after court decision about the duty to consult.

Does my hon. colleague feel that the backlash that is rising up right now across the country against the government is because of colonial treatment of people on first nations land? Perhaps that backlash could have been alleviated if the government respected the notion that the original first people of our country are still here. The treaties were signed with them, and that consultation must happen before the government goes ahead with any of its risky and dangerous environmental plans.

Opposition Motion--First Nations, Métis and Inuit

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have such great respect for my hon. colleague. I would like to ask him about the issue of treaty implementation.

I would like to ask the member about Bill C-45 and the anger and the response at the grassroots level to the government's decision to slash environmental protection of the rivers and lakes across their territory. The government treats first nations' lands as though they are some kind of colonial land. It can take it and do what it wants without consulting the people involved, damaging the rights of future generations. What is the response we are seeing across first nations communities in standing up and defending their right to be consulted and heard. It still remains land they have rights to, whether under treaty or not?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Manicouagan for that very good speech and for his very committed work. I know that he has been doing great work raising awareness on a number of pieces of legislation, including the omnibus bill, Bill C-45, and Bill C-27, the financial transparency and accountability act, which the Conservatives have pushed through.

When it comes to NunatuKavut and other nations across the country, one of the things we observe is that while the comprehensive land claims and treaty or self-government agreements are stalled in negotiations, or not even accepted for negotiation, development is taking place on the traditional territories, whether it be forestry or mining. The people who have inhabited those lands for millennia are not benefiting from that development or are having no say when it comes to the environmental impact.

The Fort Chipewyan First Nations in Alberta are very concerned about the environmental impact on their communities. On the west coast, we have forestry. In Ontario, there is the Ring of Fire.

I wonder if the member could comment specifically on why it is important to move forward on negotiating these comprehensive land claims and treaty and self-government agreements so that the people who live in those territories have a say about the kind of development that is happening.

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

Mr. Speaker, taking into account the scope and familiar nature of the motion before the House, it is my duty to support the explicit and underlying concepts it contains.

As a result, in my speech today, I will provide some perspective on the realities addressed by the motion by focusing on the confrontational approach that characterizes the modern relationship between the Canadian government and aboriginal people across the country. I would like to read from the motion before us, which states:

That this House call on the government to: (a) abandon its confrontational approach to First Nations, Métis and Inuit in favour of a nation-to-nation dialogue...

First, I will talk about the confrontational approach. At the risk of repeating myself, over the Christmas break, when I was deeply inspired by the Idle No More movement, I was asked to prepare a course and to travel throughout Canada and the United States. I had to do a detour through the United States to get to certain parts of Quebec. In short, I travelled to many aboriginal communities across the country to give a course on the modernization and amendment of the Indian Act, which is related to bills such as Bill C-27, Bill C-38 and Bill C-45.

In the course introduction, I made a point of indicating that the comments made by a number of ministers and stakeholders suggest that they see the affirmation of the identity of first nations in Canada as a barrier to economic expansion. This view is shared by many other stakeholders and is due, in part, to various speeches made in the House. Some ministers and others have been quoted on this issue.

If we look closer, it is true that there is some correlation between the assertive measures that have been taken by aboriginal communities across Canada in affirmation of their identity and the dramatic drop in the stock market value of some corporate entities.

One might assume that this is a fairly simple relationship when, in reality, it is very complex. If there has been a dramatic drop in the stock value, it is because the entity in question was lax and failed to shoulder its corporate social responsibility. That is why this affirmation of identity is undermining the stock market value of these entities. In a way, this premise is flawed because it is not the affirmation of aboriginal identity itself that is creating a barrier to economic expansion; rather, it is the lack of transparency and the financial wrongdoing observed in remote areas.

Successive Canadian governments and all of the other parties have tried over the years to put Indians in a box, if I may say so. In other words, they have tried to restrict the jurisdiction, the affirmation of identity, the social, cultural and economic affirmation of first nations, in order to give economic entities more peace of mind. This government has been even more obvious about it than its predecessors and is moving forward with a corporatist agenda, primarily promoting natural resources extraction as an economic engine and key component of economic development across the country.

I simply wanted to point that out. I should technically be talking about how shocked nationalists are in Quebec right now, because they are also dealing with a conflict situation that can lead to confrontation. However, that is a different story, and I will discuss the situation with the appropriate stakeholders in due course. There you go.

This situation reveals the selective and preferential nature of the relationships between aboriginal communities and the Canadian government in 2013. The motion before us refers to a comprehensive land claim that has not been addressed since 1991, and it is not the only one. I will give some concrete examples in a few seconds. Unfortunately, this lack of dialogue between stakeholders is a reflection of the reality of a number of contentious aboriginal cases across the country.

Successive governments, and this government in particular, could be criticized for cherry-picking. In other words, the Conservatives are choosing which stakeholders they want to talk to. In some respects, although this situation is not so widespread, I find it problematic enough to bring it to the attention of the House.

There are some community management organizations and band councils that are essentially puppet governments. The Conservatives hand-picked, cherry-picked some pawns. These people were put in place in strategic communities to speak out in favour of proposed policies. This is not necessarily widespread, but it is common enough that I wanted to mention it today.

The government is trying to interfere in tribal politics. It chooses representatives. That is why some communities have really spoken out. They have such strong social, economic and cultural foundations that federal transfers and support seem marginal. These people are more autonomous.

Strangely enough, as in the case of the situation that has been going on since 1991, the current government will simply choose to ignore remote communities because they are too strong and they have developed energy policies that the government is unhappy with.

What this government wants are good, servile, submissive, accommodating and easily manipulated Indians. It is as though the government is a puppeteer making its marionettes dance.

I say this because in recent years, I have found that I often end up out on the sidewalk, strangely enough, during big community meetings.

I would like to share an example that I will continue to come back to until the end of my term. A supposedly historic meeting was held in January 2012. A number of community representatives were invited. However, the invitation was not extended to all communities, even though the government claimed to be inclusive. The government wanted to develop a new relationship with first nations peoples. I was personally escorted by intelligence officers. I was essentially kicked to the curb. As I was on the sidewalk, I realized that I was in good company. There were other representatives from several nations who were deemed unwelcome.

So much for the inclusive aspect of this new relationship.

I think that is quite deplorable. Things like that should not be happening in 2013.

Cherry-picking and choosing pawns and representatives for community management organizations is highly objectionable. That is why, in 2013, the Conservatives are seeing a huge amount of opposition from the first nations. That is also why their economic development plan has stalled and is really struggling.

Our international reputation is plummeting, just like the stock market value of some companies that are ignoring their social, environmental and other responsibilities.

The Environment

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Combating Terrorism Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me describe some of the amendments that were attempted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Environment

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

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

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

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

Opposition Motion--Science

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

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

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

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

Motions in Amendment

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

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

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

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

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

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

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

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

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

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

Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Northern Jobs and Growth Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The cases could give you goosebumps.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Environment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012

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

Mr. Speaker, since the passage of the last technical tax bill in 2001, the government has made a number of tax-related changes through the use of comfort letters.

However, these new measures have become common practice and have never been incorporated into a technical tax bill.

Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act and other tax legislation, will incorporate more than 200 changes made to the tax code since 2001, over 12 years ago.

We support this bill because it will implement a series of technical amendments to the tax system that have been developed over the last decade. These technical changes are in fact largely beneficial and necessary. In the NDP, we believe that these changes will ultimately have a positive impact on revenues and are a good way of reducing tax avoidance, as has been discussed at length in this debate.

Tax evasion costs Canadians a lot of money. It is estimated that Canada foregoes revenue amounting to nearly $80 billion every year because of various forms of tax avoidance.

Numerous measures can be adopted to deal with tax avoidance, including the fair and uniform application of tax rules, as is done in this bill, and the automatic exchange of tax information and adoption of a protocol for publishing the taxes paid by corporations. It is in fact impossible to enact all these measures without leadership from the government.

I believe that this bill and the measures it includes are a step in the right direction, to help the government combat tax avoidance and deter these various practices.

Similarly, the bill talks about various measures to ensure that income received by residents of Canada from any source is taxed, and measures relating to the taxation of foreign affiliates of Canadian multinational corporations. The purpose of those measures is essentially to guarantee the integrity of the tax system and deter tax evasion.

The bill also contains provisions implementing various technical measures that have been developed since 2002. Among other things, that part contains anti-avoidance measures, which I will not list because this is very technical, measures limiting the use of foreign tax credit generators in order to avoid foreign tax, measures setting out the rules for taxable Canadian property of non-residents and immigrants, and the creation of a regime for information reporting of tax avoidance transactions so that people can be informed about how avoidance occurs and avoid falling into that trap or to make it easier to identify these forms of avoidance.

Any avoidance transaction that is for the purpose of obtaining a tax benefit will now have to be reported for greater transparency, even if it is not improper.

The bill also includes three new measures that we support and that had not been announced already.

First, a number of federal fiscal constraints will be rectified to solve transition problems.

Second, the formula for the attribution of taxable corporate income that applies to airline corporations is amended to ensure that the taxable income of one of these companies is entirely attributed to the provinces or territories where it has a permanent establishment. That is logical.

Third, a measure relating to the tax treatment of shares owned by short-term residents for departure tax purposes. Obviously, this is all very abstruse, but it is part of the 1,000 pages being added. This adds to the complexity, which we find unfortunate in view of the fact that there have already been 3,000 pages of tax measures in the last few decades.

All in all, by ensuring the integrity of the tax law in force and minimizing the potential loopholes, these measures will operate to increase government revenue. As my colleague said, when government revenue is increased, then we can invest in social programs, for example, and in programs for health care, the environment and greater fairness.

In its present form, however, the tax system is unendingly complex. That complexity affects individuals, for whom it is very difficult to plan their taxes with the vast menu of tax credits we now have.

The tax system also poses problems for Canadian businesses and undermines their competitiveness. If they have to dissect it all and invest in administrators or accountants who have to analyze each of the 200 amendments being made a decade later, for example, that is money that they cannot invest in local jobs or jobs in their small business. It therefore reduces their productivity and competitiveness.

The difficulty of planning their spending also limits investments in innovation and hiring. Clearer tax rules could improve the competitiveness of our businesses and create more jobs.

While we support the bill, the document is nearly 1,000 pages long and has all the makings of an omnibus bill, again. Obviously, the last technical tax bill, which was more than 12 years ago, incorporates certain legislative amendments, some of which go back to 1998. The enormous scope of this bill demonstrates that the government has to be a lot more responsible in its management of tax legislation and make sure that proposals relating to tax law are enacted more regularly.

Unlike the gigantic budget bills, Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, the changes made do not affect a huge spectrum of legislation, and rather affect certain specific statutes. But this bill still does much to complicate the work that parliamentarians do in assessing bills, given that a lot of time is needed to process a bill and get through a thousand-page block, time that we do not have today.

As well, prioritizing the elimination of tax loopholes has to be done in a timely manner. Most of these measures have been adopted in current practice. The fact that they are not being enacted until years later brings an element of uncertainty and unforeseeability to the business world. Experience seems to tell us that it might be time to rethink how we do this. Tax bills should be much more modest—shorter, that is—and there should be more of them, introduced on a regular basis, to ensure that their provisions are implemented in a more timely manner.

In addition to legitimizing the work done by parliamentarians, that would operate to reassure the business world. It would also show that we are much more democratic and would mean we could avoid having unenacted tax measures accumulate, since this impedes progress, and at the same time allow us to improve and strengthen the Canadian tax system. It would also operate to facilitate financial planning and management for businesses, taxpayers and tax experts, who themselves have trouble making their way through all this jumble of rules.

As well, enacting tax measures speedily after they are announced would also enable the government to collect large sums of money that could be reinvested in programs for health care, education, food inspection and environmental assessment, for example.

This position is shared by many experts, including the former Auditor General of Canada, Sheila Fraser, the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada, as well as Marlene Legare, former senior chief of the Sales Tax Division at the Department of Finance. They all agree that this will help improve the process and simplify our tax legislation, which is becoming increasingly complex.

We recently led a campaign against the excessive fees that credit card companies are charging small and medium-sized businesses and other merchants. Businesses are already overwhelmed by all the paperwork. With all that those companies contribute to Canada, the Conservatives—who claim to be the best advocates of local economies and small and medium-sized businesses—are blocking the growth of local economies and job creation. It is hard to believe the Conservatives when they introduce these kinds of bills.

In closing, in 2009, the former Auditor General of Canada, Sheila Fraser, was already concerned about the fact that at least 400 technical amendments still had not been enacted through legislation. Bill C-48 enacts more than 200 of these measures and changes. I wish to echo Ms. Fraser's concerns, given that another 200 changes still have not been applied and remain outstanding.

Can the government tell us when it plans to incorporate those measures into legislation and how? It would be a shame to have to wait another 10 years before those changes are adopted, especially since, much like this bill overall, they will have a positive impact on Canada's tax system. Just like the measures that will be added to the legislation thanks to Bill C-48, the purpose of these measures is to ensure the integrity of our existing tax legislation, close the loopholes to discourage tax avoidance, increase our revenues and therefore take part in positive economics.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I feel especially privileged to have the chance to speak twice on Bill C-48, which amends the Income Tax Act. Not everyone has an opportunity to address this highly charged issue.

As I mentioned the last time, this bill is nearly 1,000 pages long and makes a number of very technical changes to Canada’s tax system, changes that have accumulated over more than a decade. It seeks to obtain official approval for the various technical measures that have been put forward by the Minister of Finance over the years, over more than 10 years now, in fact.

We in the NDP believe that the technical changes proposed in Bill C-48 will be good for the Canadian tax system and will generally reduce tax avoidance. This is why the NDP will be supporting the bill at second reading.

The NDP believes that, as parliamentarians, as the elected representatives of Canadians, we have a duty to do whatever we can to minimize tax evasion and get rid of loopholes in our legislation, to ensure that the government has all the resources it needs to provide Canadians with the government services and institutions that they depend on and, more importantly, that they deserve.

Because of the Conservative government's budgets, we are facing drastic service cuts that will affect the Canadians who need those services the most. Money that is in the system could be invested in our social programs and in the institutions Canadians depend on, such as the universal public health insurance system. Ultimately, we could even set up other programs. Instead of being used to benefit the most privileged among us, this revenue should benefit the whole of Canadian society. It is important to do everything we can to bring the money back into the system so that the government can use it.

It is all well and good to cut a little bit here, there and everywhere, but we must be able to generate the revenue we need so that we can maintain what we have achieved, improve and enhance existing programs, and then come up with new programs that meet the needs of Canadians. I think that if a government is not able to do this, it is not doing its job. Unfortunately, this is true of the current Conservative government. This is what the NDP will be changing in 2015, when it forms the government, of course.

Since the Conservatives would have us believe that they are good managers of public funds, I find it really surprising and very disappointing that they waited so long before doing what was needed to get the technical amendments in Bill C-48 through Parliament.

In fact, the most recent technical tax bill was passed in 2001. That is more than 10 years ago. By 2009, at least 400 technical amendments had still not been enacted.

Bill C-48 is huge, nearly 1,000 pages, and it clearly shows that this government must be more responsible in managing tax legislation.

It is absolutely unacceptable to penalize taxpayers and the business sector by perpetuating so much uncertainty and unpredictability in Canada’s taxation amendment process.

Furthermore, because the Conservatives are so slow, we are once again dealing with a massive omnibus bill and we have very little time to really study it and to examine the implications of its legislative measures.

It really is a shame that the Conservatives persist in using this strategy, which, frankly, hinders the work that we in the House must do, that is, to study and consider bills and their impact on the Canadian public. The fact that we are prevented from conducting our parliamentary work properly has a direct impact on Canadian democracy and Canadians’ trust in their elected officials.

At least things are a little better this time around because the Conservatives had the decency to combine a series of bills dealing with the same subject in Bill C-48. It is actually quite refreshing compared to Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, bills that sought to hide a raft of drastic and socially harmful changes in areas such as environmental protection, immigration, employment insurance, old age security and many more.

Despite all that, although tax measures are involved and it is all one subject, in general we are in favour of the bill’s content. However, the fact remains that we are dealing with a document that is incredibly long. We do not have much time to study the amendments, which are technical and relatively complex and merit careful study. A number of them have already been implemented by tax professionals, accountants and businesses, but some things are still not clear and should perhaps be given further consideration. Once again, we do not have an opportunity to do so, because this is an omnibus bill.

Every week, my constituents come into my office in Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier to tell me that they are tired of seeing these kinds of bills in the House, tired of seeing these huge documents and tired of seeing that their elected officials, whom they elected to represent them, are incapable of doing their job.

Canadians are fed up with the way this government operates. Things have to change and quickly. The government needs to stop dragging its feet and establish a truly efficient process for quickly and regularly enacting the technical amendments in the comfort letters issued several times a year by the Department of Finance.

I think the message is clear. I will repeat what a number of my colleagues have already said: we will be supporting the bill. However, we must ensure that a situation like the one we are faced with today will not occur again, and we must ensure that the government will present us with technical amendments on a regular basis so that we can do our job properly.

Opposition Motion—Federal Infrastructure Plan

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on this timely and appropriate motion from the member for Trinity—Spadina. I will be sharing my time with the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl.

First, I need to take umbrage with the comments from the member opposite just prior to mine, in that he suggested that somehow the NDP was voting against the gas tax. That could not be further from the truth.

Jack Layton was the champion of the gas tax, was the one who thought of the idea in the first place, and was the member of Parliament who brought it to fruition. Without Jack Layton, we would not have a gas tax for the other side to now crow about. Part of what goes on over there is that things get done by members on this side and then get adopted by members on that side as things that they thought of when they did not.

The other issue is in relation to the $2 billion the member pointed out as being the government's ongoing contribution to the infrastructure deficit in this country. It will take 80 years for that money to actually deal with the infrastructure deficit that this country now faces. If anyone thinks that the bridges, roadways, water systems and sewer systems are going to last 80 years, they have another think coming. It is not possible. That is way too little money, and it is not the cities of this country that are going to suffer, but the people who live in those cities.

The other part of the speech from the member opposite talked about how we voted against things. It is very interesting that none of the issues that they put forward as things they have done were ever separated out, were ever something that we could have voted for, because they were always buried with things we could not stand, such as the reductions in environmental protections in Bill C-38 and the removal of the Navigable Waters Protection Act from many of the waters in Canada in Bill C-45. Those are the kinds of things that we are forced to vote against.

If Conservatives throw a few crumbs in with that and then later say we voted against it, it is very erroneous thinking. It is not fair for the government to suggest that the NDP is not in favour of infrastructure when in fact we are pushing infrastructure everywhere we can.

The biggest infrastructure deficit facing this country will be the infrastructure deficit caused by our commitments to reduce greenhouse gases and our commitment to deal finally with the problem of global warming and climate change. That infrastructure deficit is something we all should pay attention to.

The situation now is that the previous government signed on to Kyoto and then did not really do anything about it, while the current government abandoned Kyoto and still has not really done anything about it. There have been some vague promises from the Prime Minister that we will reduce our greenhouse gas emissions in this country by 2020 by 17%. Right now, by my best guess, we are actually going to increase our level of greenhouse gases by 2020 if we do not start doing things about it.

The other thing he promised was that we would reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 65% by 2050; 65% is a lot. It means that two-thirds of the activity in this country that is currently using fossil fuels must stop using fossil fuels.

There are basically five things that go on in this country. We heat and cool our buildings. We have industry, which requires energy. We have agriculture, which requires energy. We have goods transportation and we have personal transportation. Each of those five is roughly 20% of the use of energy in this country. Are we going to stop doing three of those five things? Are we going to stop moving people? Are we going to stop moving goods? Are we going to stop having industry? Are we going to stop having agriculture? Are we going to stop heating and cooling our houses? No, we are not going to stop doing all those things.

However, if we are to attain the goal of reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases, we have to stop using fossil fuels for all of those things. How do we do that? We do it with electricity. That is currently the only way. The only way we can actually have enough electricity to do those kinds of things is to start building the generating capacity of clean electric power now, through infrastructure programs that will allow it to be delivered across this country.

In my riding right now there is a giant infrastructure program going on to build new rail lines. Rail is good. It moves people more efficiently than cars and goods more efficiently than trucks. The trouble is that the Conservative government has not signed on to making that rail system electric. It would be a first huge step for the government to show its commitment to reducing greenhouse gases by electrifying our transportation networks across this country—by first building the transportation systems, but by building them electric.

The member for Davenport has suggested that we have $6 billion worth of gridlock in the city of Toronto every year. That means we are losing $6 billion, and these guys are throwing $2 billion at the problem.

We need to build public transit infrastructure and we need to build it quickly if we are to meet that 2050 target of a 65% reduction in greenhouse gases that the Prime Minister has set for himself. We need to have electric transportation across the country to deliver our goods and people safely, quickly and without using fossil fuels. It is the only way we are ever going to achieve that target.

We are not going to achieve that target by regulation. If we think about it, how would we regulate an industry like agriculture into not using fossil fuels? That is not going to happen. How are we going to regulate the movement of goods and people without providing a system whereby the movement of goods and people can done without using greenhouse gases? This is not something that a P3 is going to solve. It would take actual leadership from the government across Canada to take the bull by the horns to actually deliver on the promised reduction in greenhouse gases.

The way to do that is through the generation of clean electricity from the use of turbines, photocells and other forms of clean electric generation, such as tidal generation in the north and the east. That electricity could be provided across Canada for heating and cooling homes and for transporting people and goods in such a way that we could stop using fossil fuels for those activities.

We cannot meet that 2050 target any other way. If we do not start now with a real commitment to infrastructure in this country, a real commitment to transportation infrastructure, a real commitment to public transit and a real commitment to the kind of money that is necessary to do this, we are never going to meet the 2050 targets.

The Conservatives used to have a green infrastructure fund. However, what did they do in the last budget, which we voted against? They slashed the green infrastructure fund. The Conservative government used to have a home renovation credit, a renovation payment plan, so that individuals could make their homes use less greenhouse gas energy. What did the Conservatives do? They gutted it. They actually cut it off before all the money that was budgeted was spent. There was money in that budget to try to reduce greenhouse gases through infrastructure spending, but it was not spent. That was infrastructure money from the minister, but that money was never spent.

The government talks a big talk but does not actually deliver, and that is what is needed. It is what this motion is all about. It is to say to the government that we need to have a strategy to do this. It is not just because the cities need it, not just because the country needs it, not just because we say so, but because it is an absolute priority in order to create the kind of Canada that will allow our children and grandchildren to be able to breathe and to live in the kind of comfort that we now live in.

However, that is not going to happen without a significant new input in financial resources from the government. The $2 billion a year just to cover repairs of existing infrastructure is never going to do the kind of work that is necessary to build the infrastructure that this country needs to move forward into this century.

Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to weigh in, for a few moments anyway, on Bill C-48. I commend the member for Brossard—La Prairie, not only for his speech but also for the incredibly valuable work he performed as a member of the Standing Committee on Finance. Not to put too fine a point on it, he is a brilliant deputé and made an important contribution. I know that he will make a similar type of contribution on the justice committee, where he is now focusing his attention.

We are dealing with a bill that is nearly a thousand pages long. As others have said, it deals with a huge number of needed amendments that have been outstanding for nearly 15 years. They were announced but were not enacted in legislation, creating great confusion and problems for tax practitioners and individual Canadians.

The point made by one of the groups we spoke to, and that I am sure he heard from, Blakes, was that as a result of allowing this backlog of amendments to build up, the government has increased the complexity of the tax system. That flies in the face of everything the government has claimed it stands for as it relates to things such as reducing red tape and simplifying the tax system to make it easily accessible and understood by Canadians. That is another example of how the government tells Canadians one thing and goes ahead and does something else.

We heard from other members of this caucus that the Auditor General, in 2009, reported to the House that there were upwards of 400 tax amendments that had been proclaimed and were being carried forward but they had not been codified and enacted in legislation. That was creating a problem, a sense of confusion and an added level of complexity. He said it was simply bad practice and was not the way to run something as technical and important as the tax system under the finance acts.

Bill C-48, I understand, deals with about half of those. It does not deal with the additional ones that have been announced by the government since 2009. Therefore, even though we are dealing with a piece of legislation that is 1000 pages long and is extraordinarily complex, we will not have time to go through it in the kind of detail with which we probably should go through it. The government is still not dealing with all the changes in the tax system that have been enacted already but that have yet to be codified.

That is why the experts, such as the Certified General Accountants-Canada and the Auditor General, have said it is so important. We have comments from Thomas McDonnell, from Thorsteinssons LLP tax lawyers, and others who have said it is important to make sure that, for the tax changes that are proposed, announced and put in place by the Minister of Finance or the government, whether at budget time or at other times during the year, the government should be introducing legislation annually in the House to make sure that happens.

In 2007 the Conservatives introduced Bill C-10, which was an attempt to try to catch up to the backlog. Members will know that in 2008, they pulled the plug, because they felt that they might be able to get a majority government at the time. Even though they were flying in the face of fixed-term legislation that the Prime Minister himself lauded, they went to the polls in the fall of 2008. As a result, Bill C-10 died on the order paper.

The point is that they should not be waiting years to take care of business that should be looked after on an annual basis. It would give legislators here and experts across the country an opportunity to take a small chunk of legislation and amendments and to have a full discussion about their implications. That would be a sign of good governance.

If Parliament were up to date on those kinds of legislative changes, and the government of the day decided to prorogue the House or call an election or whatever, we would only be dealing with one year of changes next time around and would not be participating in a buildup of a backlog.

As everyone who knows about this system has said, it is extraordinarily complex. Allowing this backlog to build and bringing in amendments this way to an extraordinarily technical piece of legislation of almost 1,000 pages does not provide the clarity and opportunity for simplifying the tax system that we should be looking for. It is in the interest of all Canadians.

Since my time is winding down, I will make three points. I have said already that the bill is extremely technical. New Democrats think it does not need to be so technical.

In respect of good governance and legislative management, it should be done on an annual basis. Let me be clear that we on this side believe in cracking down on both tax avoidance and tax evasion while ensuring the integrity of our tax system. We support these changes, but we want to ensure that they happen on a more manageable basis.

This is an omnibus bill of sorts, but as opposed to Bills C-45 and C-38, it does not bring 60 pieces of legislation together with nothing that ties them together. It deals with changes to closely related pieces of legislation.

Finally, the massive size of this bill demonstrates that there is still work to be done in getting technical changes legislated in a timely fashion. As I have said and will reiterate, failing to do so hurts the business community. It makes it difficult for proper evaluation by Parliament. Ultimately, it impacts the economy of this country and individual Canadians who are trying to work with an increasingly complex tax system as they go about their business and their daily lives making sure they provide for themselves and their families and build stronger communities and a stronger country.

That is our goal. Those are the measures we would like to see the government move forward with.

We will be supporting the legislation. I urge the government to ensure that this is done on an annual basis from here on in.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I heard my colleague from Alfred-Pellan say that her office had received a lot of correspondence about the previous omnibus bills. We are not talking about the current omnibus bill, which is nevertheless related to all that.

Has my colleague received any correspondence from her fellow citizens on the two previous omnibus bills, Bills C-45 and C-38?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Montcalm for her excellent speech on an extremely large bill. Quite frankly, the 1,000 pages is enough to make your head spin.

This morning, I raised my concerns regarding omnibus bills and the Conservatives' habit of introducing very large bills that affect a lot of legislation and take a long time to pass.

Often, my constituents in Alfred-Pellan, in Laval, voice this concern by mail or over the phone. They tell me that it is not logical to introduce omnibus bills because, often, they are duplicitous.

What feedback has my colleague had from her constituents regarding omnibus bills like this one, or the budget bills, such as C-38 and C-45, which were introduced in recent months?

How have the constituents in her riding reacted to the arrogance displayed by Conservative government in introducing this kind of omnibus bill?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord.

I am rising in this House today to speak to Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act and related legislation. This bill affects many pieces of legislation.

We in the NDP believe that this bill will have a positive impact on revenues and will generally discourage tax avoidance. Frankly, a technical tax bill was overdue. I am pleased to see that Parts 2 and 3 of Bill C-48 deal with the taxation of Canadian multinational corporations with foreign affiliates. These changes reflect the proposals made in the budgets of 2007, December 2009, February 2010, August 2010 and August 2011, and I am pleased to see that they seek to ensure the integrity of the tax system and discourage tax avoidance.

The NDP is in favour of cracking down on tax evasion and tax avoidance. That is why my colleagues at the Standing Committee on Finance have been pushing the committee to complete its study on this.

As an aside, I want to thank our official opposition finance critics: the senior critic, the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park, and the deputy critic, the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. Over the past few months, they have done tremendous work on finance bills, including the omnibus budget bills and the current omnibus tax bill. I thank them. Their work is much appreciated, and it helps us to better understand the bills that are being introduced.

I am also pleased to see that this bill makes changes in order to reduce tax evasion. What is more, it seems that the committee will continue its study on the matter this year.

It is quite something to think that it has been 11 years since a bill like this has been passed. Tax practitioners have said time and again that Canada is very far behind because this government has taken too long to legislate these technical changes.

In a report released in 2009, Auditor General Sheila Fraser noted that:

If proposed technical changes are not tabled regularly, the volume of amendments becomes difficult for taxpayers, tax practitioners, and parliamentarians to absorb when they are grouped into a large package.

We could also see that the Department of Finance Canada had at least 400 technical amendments that, unfortunately, had not been enacted. I believe it is crucial that this type of delay does not happen again.

I also agree with the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada, which, during prebudget consultations, proposed to the Standing Committee on Finance that Canada's tax system be modernized to make it simpler, more transparent and more efficient. The association also proposed that a technical tax bill be introduced and passed to deal with unlegislated tax proposals. Finally it suggested that a sunset provision be implemented to prevent further legislative backlogs.

It is also true that the complexity of tax legislation makes this task extremely difficult. Our seniors, our youth and those who do not consider French or English as their first language would obviously prefer a simpler system that is easier to understand. Being a responsible, honest Canadian should not be so complicated.

This huge bill makes things even more complex. We know that this government is a great believer in omnibus bills, as it has demonstrated over the past year with Bills C-38 and C-45. Luckily, this time, I can see that the bill proposes technical amendments to a small number of closely related laws and not laws in other areas. The other two bills, on the other hand, amended laws related to environmental protection, government accountability, immigration, employment insurance and so on.

I still find it ironic that this government is introducing a bill that is so long when it did not hesitate to denounce such a practice before.

During the debate on Bill C-22, Income Tax Amendments Act, 2000, in the 37th Parliament in 2001, my colleague from Calgary Southeast, who is now the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, had this to say:

Let me say at the outset that the bill before us is a classic example of what has gone wrong with parliamentary oversight of legislation, particularly with respect to taxation. The bill before us has some 513 pages of technical amendments. I can say with a fair degree certainty that not a single member of this place, let alone the parliamentary secretary who just spoke or the minister he represents, has read or will read. It is a bill that exercises enormous power over the lives of Canadians through the Income Tax Act which in itself has coercive powers delegated to it by this parliament. The some 500 pages of amendments in the bill are amendments to a tax act which runs over 1,300 pages long.

I think the same observations apply to Bill C-48, especially since it is twice as long as Bill C-22.

I believe that Canadians deserve to be represented by parliamentarians who make sensible decisions when it comes to taxes and spending. Canadians want accountability, and rightly so.

When we see things like the Parliamentary Budget Officer having to take the government to court to get information about how tax dollars are being spent and what cuts are being made to the services Canadians need, I think the public is entitled to ask some questions and to admit that they have lost confidence in this government.

Out of respect for Canadians, a government should be accountable and transparent. Frankly, that should be the very least they can expect.

Since I was first elected, not a day goes by without someone from my riding of Alfred-Pellan contacting me to share their concerns about this government. They are worried about how transparent it is, and if you ask me, they are right to be worried.

In closing, I am thrilled that this bill has been introduced, even though it took a while, because it implements over a decade's worth of highly technical changes to Canada's tax system.

Before I finish, I want to reiterate that the people of Alfred-Pellan contact me often about the omnibus bills. I recently received letters from some of them that I would like to share in the House so that everyone can understand that the public does follow what is going on in Parliament and that it is important to listen to them.

I will quote some of my constituents from Alfred-Pellan. First, Mr. Nadeau said that the Conservative Party is running the country with its own members in mind, and Mr. Nadeau is against the massive bills introduced by the Conservatives. According to him, they are using these bills to try to push through all of their ideas en masse, and it is very sad to see these bills being introduced.

Mr. Prejent said that it is impossible, or at least very difficult, to meaningfully challenge a particular issue. It is becoming clear that this approach allows the government to pull a fast one on the opposition, and by extension the Canadian public.

To Mr. Prejent, I would say that the Canadian public is not affected by extension. This affects the Canadian public directly and the opposition by extension. We see these kinds of things every day.

One of my other constituents, Mr. Jetté, is not happy about these omnibus bills. He said that the Conservatives should talk with the opposition before bringing in such bills, and that it is arrogant and a bit too self-serving not to. He apologized for saying such things, but it is what it is.

I also heard from Mr. Bergeron, who said it was unbelievable that in 2012, the government forgets and fails to listen to the Canadian people.

People are not happy that such bills are being introduced, and I understand. I know how important these amendments can be, especially when things have dragged on and on with this government and also with the Liberals in the past. So it is important to deal with these issues, but we must be cautious. We must also ensure that these laws are useful to the public, because it is extremely complicated to make so many changes in one fell swoop. We must be cautious about the complexity of the law, especially when it comes to taxes.

I think that everyone, in all ridings, just wants to be able to properly fill out their tax returns. We need to give them the right tools. We must make their lives easier and make things as simple as possible.

As parliamentarians, we have a duty to ensure that Canadians trust their government and trust that it is transparent when it manages taxpayer money. Unfortunately that is not always the case with the current government. But I am happy to be part of a team that, in 2015, will show that it is possible to have a government that works fairly, efficiently and transparently.

Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill we are considering today is very important and quite complex. My colleague from Hamilton Mountain mentioned that the debate may seem very dry, but it is still at the heart of issues that affect all Canadians in terms of respect for the regulations in place. This despite the apparent simplicity of its purpose: to make reference to material and incorporate it in a regulation without reproducing the text. The material will have the same authority and the same force as the rest of the regulation, without actually being there in full.

This debate is already a few years old, and the answer is not always clear even though this technique has been used in federal regulations for a long time already, according to the Chief Legislative Counsel at Justice Canada, Mr. John Mark Keyes. In an earlier speech, my colleague mentioned that this government has used this technique 170 times since 2006.

The bill does indeed appear to be complex, dealing as it does with issues of administrative law and regulations, but it is nevertheless very important and its passage may have a direct impact on the lives of Canadians. We will look into this aspect a little bit later on.

As I said, this bill is very important because it will set a precedent for deciding once and for all whether using this technique for drafting and formulating regulations is legitimate and legal.

The issue is that the bill would make it possible to use open or closed incorporation depending on the type of reference, but the difference between the two is crucial. The regulation-making authority in question will be able to make reference to material—such as a legislative text, a treaty, a standard or technical material—and its subsequent and earlier amendments will be incorporated in the regulations automatically. This is called open incorporation.

Needless to say, in certain cases, incorporation by reference appears to be a logical solution. In the case of interest rates, for instance, or other similar indices, such as the consumer price index or the unemployment rate, I think it is obvious that it should be possible to incorporate numbers, rates or indices in the regulation without having to take the legislative route every time. However, if we dig a little deeper, two issues come up. First, I will quote subsection 18.1(3) of the bill:

The power to make a regulation also includes the power to incorporate by reference an index, rate or number—as it exists on a particular date or as it is varied from time to time—[that is, as it may change in the future] established by Statistics Canada, the Bank of Canada or a person or body other than the regulation-making authority.

In other words, the government will be free to incorporate in regulations the definitions, rates and indices established by just about anyone, including civil society groups, foreign governments, NGOs, and so on. The bill does not define those two terms nor does it refer to any definitions in any other legislation. This is a serious problem that was discovered by the Senate committee.

Senator Fraser, asking for clarification about the definitions of these two terms and the ridiculously broad scope of this power, “Trust us' is what you are saying to me”.

The second problem has to do with the accessibility of the regulations, for both Canadians and for Parliament. Indeed, regulations are rather dry, often very complicated texts, and the addition of indices and figures without any direct reference could make the regulations and their objectives even more difficult to understand. It is important to ensure absolute clarity regarding the context in which these figures and indices are incorporated, and I am not convinced that this bill does that.

Furthermore, another kind of accessibility is at issue here: the power of parliamentary oversight. In that sense, this bill in no way responds to the joint committee's concerns regarding the use of incorporation by reference. In fact, the bill does the exact opposite. The joint committee worked very hard to respect the principle of the legislative power of Parliament.

These two problems are mentioned in the most recent edition of L'action gouvernementale -- Précis de droit des institutions administratives by Lemieux and Issalys. I quote:

The frequency of such references is making some people fear an erosion of state sovereignty in favour of power structures over which they have no influence. It is also raising more concrete concerns about citizens' access to texts detailing the standards that govern them.

That is at the heart of what we are debating here. The authors are essentially talking about altering the regulatory power, since the reference could prevent people from understanding the regulations, particularly in the case of a so-called ambulatory incorporation by reference, since a reference is being made not only to an external text, but also to the specific context in which the text was created or amended, to which the person subject to the regulations does not necessarily have access.

The use of references to regulations outside of the Canadian legal context poses an even bigger problem, and yet this use is becoming increasingly common.

I would like to read another clause from the bill, paragraph 18.3(1):

The regulation-making authority shall ensure that a document, index, rate or number that is incorporated by reference is accessible.

If the idea behind the reference is to avoid having to publish the documents incorporated a second time, since the documents are usually published and accessible in another form, what does the word “accessible” mean? I have listened to the majority of the speeches here this afternoon. But the absence of this definition, or the vague definition, is yet another obstacle to having an exhaustive and effective bill to protect Canadians from being ignorant of the regulations or of the provisions in regulations that could affect them.

According to the legislative counsel of the Minister of Justice, a document can be considered accessible if the person subject to the regulations is able to obtain a copy of the document in question and then understand what needs to be understood. It is not mandatory to send a copy of the document to this person. The document simply has to be accessible if the person makes a reasonable effort.

And that is where section 18.7 takes on its full significance. If accessibility is not demonstrated, this clause paves the way for sanctions or convictions based on the incorporated document. So subsection 18.3(1) can be interpreted as requiring the regulation-making authority to be responsible for accessibility, not the people subject to the regulations.

But who will determine what constitutes reasonable effort? We can all agree that referring to a Canadian or Quebec law does not necessarily require much effort from one of our constituents. It will require Internet access, but that is another debate for another time.

However, if we are talking about a foreign government's specific phytosanitary standards, for example, the person must be able to find that information. In the event that Canada has not yet harmonized its standards with the country in question, the person must navigate a foreign government's website, hoping that the information will be posted in one of Canada's official languages.

I want to say that there are limits to that idea that no one can be ignorant of the law. As parliamentary legislators, we live in a legislative universe and we sometimes have trouble making sense of it. I cannot even imagine the average Canadian who is trying to understand an enabling statute and its many regulations, especially if the regulations are split between an existing text and references.

Mr. Keyes, who testified at the Senate committee, said this during his testimony:

...the bill is making a substantial improvement in that it is for the first time generally stating this obligation, and it is largely stating the obligation in the way that it exists right now in terms of the common law and in terms of the way the courts have dealt with these issues in the very limited number of cases that incorporated documents have ever come up in the courts.

But he forgot, perhaps, to mention that this improvement is the result of the bill and that debate is still raging over the best approach to take concerning regulation by reference.

This technique is controversial. Recommendations from the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations clearly state the following:

...incorporation by reference also gives rise to concerns relating to accessibility to the law, in that although incorporated material becomes part of the regulations, the actual text of that material must be found elsewhere.

The report continues:

Such concerns are heightened where material is incorporated “as amended from time to time”, in that members of the public may have difficulty ascertaining precisely what the current version is at a particular point in time.

The Liberal senators tried to amend the bill in order to establish guidelines to create standards related to the use of regulations by reference depending on whether it is static or ambulatory. This proposal was rejected, despite the fact that such provisions currently exist in many other countries, including Australia and New Zealand, as well as in certain provincial jurisdictions, including Ontario and Manitoba.

Furthermore, it is not always easy to distinguish between the two types of reference, which can lead to confusion during interpretation of the regulations. My hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands mentioned that Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, both massive bills, contained incorporation by reference provisions. In Bill C-38, it was clause 89. I will not read the clause, because it is six paragraphs long. In Bill C-45, it was clause 30.

This massive bill before us already has some very important elements leading to both a static and ambulatory incorporation by reference. But this measure is not yet entrenched in our regulations, and as we heard in many speeches, its legitimacy raises some questions, not only for us as parliamentarians, because we have to discuss and debate these pieces of legislation and perhaps pass them, but also for any Canadians who find themselves having to navigate this quagmire.

Again, Bills C-38 and C-45 added, amended or eliminated over 130 different acts. If, some day, we can include incorporation by reference, particularly ambulatory incorporation by reference, we may get totally confused, and even more so if that practice is generalized with the presence of terms whose definition is imprecise or non-existent.

The Senate refused to define terms like “accessibility” and “reasonable effort to get the document”. We, on this side of the House, hope to do this essential work at committee stage and to ensure that the legislation will be suited to all Canadians.

In the end, these elements of Bills C-38 and C-45 suggest that the minister is giving himself a fair amount of power. Do we really want to go in that direction with Canadian legislation? This process could well be used to make the legislation even less transparent and accessible to Canadians.

I do not think that this method should be completely avoided, since it also offers benefits in terms of the effectiveness of the legislation and the streamlining of statutory instruments which are often complex and cumbersome.

The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain gave a number of examples and she mentioned some numbers. I believe it was 30,000 pages of regulations and 13,000 pages of acts in Canada. Amending 30,000 pages of regulations is a very delicate exercise. If we want to ensure that these regulations are constantly up to date, it is going to require painstaking efforts.

In that sense, incorporation by reference may be an interesting option, but we must be able to define it and use it properly. That is why we will not oppose this bill at second reading, since it will be up to the committee to make this interpretation.

That is particularly important, because we have to be careful about possible abuse and we must limit such abuse by establishing clear benchmarks. Based on what we hear from the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, and the Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, that aspect has not yet been taken seriously. The government must listen to the experts and to the opposition when it tries to improve this bill.

We still have some work to do to make this bill acceptable for this side of the House and for all Canadians. I hope that the government will co-operate with us in order to do so. It is in situations such as this that we need to set aside partisanship and work on behalf of the Canadians who elected us to represent them in this chamber.

I would like to come back to some specific examples that I have already mentioned several times, which could affect Canadians. Let us talk about employment insurance legislation, for example, the provisions relating to pilot-projects referred to the unemployment rate. Sometimes it is the national rate but usually, it is the regional rate. A database is needed in order to be able to quantify the rate. A lot of tables are used in the employment insurance regulations but, under this legislation, as things now stand, the minister could apply the regulations and their open incorporation by reference. The minister could also simply refer to tables or statistics from Statistics Canada.

Until just recently, until several months ago, people had to pay to get access to information from Statistics Canada. Unless they worked at a university or in a research facility that provided them with access, people had to pay out of their own pockets to get access to these statistics and data.

If the minister makes regulations in which there is open incorporation by reference to regional unemployment rates that are not accessible to Canadians free of charge, does that constitute reasonable access? Will people have to pay to show that they made a reasonable effort to obtain the information related to the section of the regulations that directly affects them?

Here is another question. How much will people have to pay to show that they made a reasonable effort? Will they have to pay $2.95, $10, $20, $100, $150? Right now, there is no way of knowing because accessibility and reasonable effort are not defined.

We have talked about different laws that can sometimes be linked to extraterritorial legislation or laws that apply outside the country. For example, this could be the case for laws affecting the Scott case, which pertained to a parent who took a child for whom he had joint custody out of the country.

A regulation that would affect legislation on this subject could refer to the laws in the country where that child is located. If the regulation makes an open reference, the person directly affected could have access, could consult the country's legislation to see whether the provisions are compatible with Canada's, and this could help the individual better understand the situation. In this case, the individual would have to access another country's website or legislation, which could be in another language.

This raises some questions. Does this prove accessibility? What kind of reasonable effort does the person have to show that they made to access these documents and this information? Will the person have to contact a foreign-language translator?

It is too vague for us as a party to decide whether we can support the bill. However, we think it is possible that closed—and even open—incorporation by reference helps improve accessibility.

Accessibility is at the heart of all of this. Notions such as reasonable effort must be better defined. We encourage the government to work with the official opposition and to work with all members of Parliament to ensure that we protect Canadians on this issue that affects them all. At the end of the day, we do not want them to end up in trouble or in a dangerous situation, in which they could end up being found guilty because they ignored the law or violated a specific regulation that they could not have reasonably had access to.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but it is difficult not to ignore a law if we do not know what the law is about.

I urge the government to define these very important notions. It is important to better define the elements in this bill. That is the message I want to send to the committee that will be examining this Senate bill.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to table today.

The first is from a number of people across Saskatchewan who take strong exception to Bill C-45, including, in particular, its provisions that impact in such a negative fashion upon aboriginal people. The petitioners call upon the government to rescind Bill C-45 until such time as proper consultation has taken place.

Opposition Motion—Parliamentary Budget Officer

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park for moving this very important motion today.

Like many of the world's democratic countries, in 2008, Canada created an entity to ensure government accountability, in the form of the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. This office, which was created by the Conservatives with the support of all parties, also ensures that parliamentarians are given accurate information about public finances.

The NDP is committed to ensuring that public funds are managed properly and is of the opinion that Canada needs a strong and independent Parliamentary Budget Officer. That is why it is imperative that hon. members support the motion moved by my colleague from Parkdale—High Park, which states:

That this House: (a) reaffirm the essential role of the Parliamentary Budget Officer in providing independent analysis to Parliamentarians on the state of the nation's finances, trends in the Canadian economy, and the estimates process; and (b) call on the government to: (i) extend the mandate of current Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page until his replacement is named; and (ii) support legislation to make the Parliamentary Budget Officer a full, independent officer of Parliament.

Passed in 2006 and supported by all parties, Bill C-2, the Federal Accountability Act, provides for the creation of the position of Parliamentary Budget Officer, whose role is to provide MPs and parliamentary committees with objective analyses concerning the state of the nation’s finances, trends in the national economy, and the financial cost of proposals under consideration by either House.

Under this legislation, the Parliamentary Budget Officer is also responsible for conducting research on the country's economy and finances, as well as on the government's estimates. On March 14, 2008, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons announced that Kevin Page would be the first person appointed to the position of Parliamentary Budget Officer of Canada for a term of five years. In my opinion, Mr. Page has done a remarkable job of fulfilling the mandate he was given with a team of only 14 people. In the United States, the team is made up of 200 people.

He shed light on some outrageous inaccuracies in government information presented to parliamentarians and Canadians, such as the real cost of the F-35s and the sustainability of the guaranteed income supplement and old age security programs. Mr. Page also proved that Canadians trusted him to carry out his duties and to inform the public about the state of the economy and the manner in which public funds are spent.

Over the course of his brief mandate, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has released over 150 analysis reports, with a budget of only $2.8 million. These reports include a few key reports that helped shed light on important financial details that were nowhere to be found in the government's publications.

One of these key reports was An Estimate of the Fiscal Impact of Canada’s Proposed Acquisition of the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter. This report revealed that no competitive bid process was held for the F-35s, and that acquiring these jets would not cost $16 billion U.S., but $29.3 billion U.S., nearly double the amount the Conservatives had announced. That is very shameful.

In 2012, the Parliamentary Budget Officer also released a report on old age security, in which he showed that the old age security system was perfectly sustainable, as our NDP colleagues have said time and again. This conclusion was echoed by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, which proved that there was no financial basis for the Conservative government's decision to increase the age of eligibility for old age security from 65 to 67.

In addition to these sporadic reports, the Parliamentary Budget Officer submits periodic reports to Parliament on the country's long-term financial viability. This is an important type of study that helps ensure that young Canadians, like me and other members in the House, do not inherit an economic mess.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer also pointed out that the Department of Finance was unable to specify the intergenerational impact of the budgetary changes, and God knows there have been many budgetary changes here, for example in Bill C-38 and Bill C-45. That is rather worrisome, since another budget will be tabled, and we have no idea what to expect.

These reports are just a few examples of the outstanding work that the Parliamentary Budget Officer and his team have done since the start of his term. In order to reinforce the exceptional work that he has done, we want to ensure that the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer can continue its work uninterrupted.

To that end, we want to see Kevin Page's term extended until a replacement is found. We believe that interrupting his term could severely impact the government's obligation to be accountable. This obligation is all the more crucial given that the government will soon be tabling its annual budget.

For the sake of accountability, it is also crucial that parliamentarians continue to benefit from the financial expertise of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Under no circumstances can we support the elimination of this office. Can the Conservative government confirm in this House that the PBO will be replaced by the end of his term? If not, can the Conservative government assure us that Mr. Page's term will be extended? I have my doubts, because the Conservatives, it seems, have plenty to hide.

This motion also seeks the government's support for legislation to make the Parliamentary Budget Officer a full, independent officer of Parliament. The Conservatives have repeatedly attacked Mr. Page because he has constantly pointed out their fiscal mismanagement in various areas. This should come as no surprise, though, given that the Conservatives attack anyone who dares disagree with them.

For example, the Conservatives got rid of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy because its reports and recommendations were inconsistent with the government's objectives. It was a purely partisan decision, one that was incompetent and irresponsible.

These constant political attacks indicate the need for a strong, independent Parliamentary Budget Officer. The NDP also wants the selection process for the new PBO to be open and transparent. It may be difficult for the Conservatives to be transparent, but we can always hope.

Many Canadians are worried that the government will not fill the position or will appoint someone who is unable, or unwilling, to do the work as clearly, concisely and independently as Mr. Page has done.

It is therefore imperative to remove any ambiguity and inconsistency regarding this position, which is provided for in the Federal Accountability Act. In fact, according to David Good, a professor at the University of Victoria, the confusion resulting from legislation serves only to:

...increase partisanship and the scoring of political points rather than channelling substantive information to elevate the level of debate to assist parliamentarians in the scrutiny of the budget and the estimates.

As a member of the Library of Parliament staff, the Parliamentary Budget Officer does not have the same independence as officers of Parliament. As my colleague said earlier, the Conservatives have sometimes asked the PBO not to table certain reports, which meant that the information in question was not available to parliamentarians—we, the MPs—or to the general public.

Making the PBO an officer of Parliament would give Parliament access to an independent research capacity, thereby improving its access to important information.

The Conservatives claim that the Parliamentary Budget Officer is impartial, so then why are they opposed to the PBO becoming an independent officer of Parliament?

In closing, I urge all members of this House to vote in favour of the motion moved by the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park because Canada needs a strong and independent Parliamentary Budget Officer who will help to ensure the sound management of public funds.

It is important that taxpayers have confidence in the government and in all members of this House and that we assure them that expenditures and revenues are managed in a fair and responsible manner. Canada needs a Parliamentary Budget Officer who will let the facts speak for themselves so that they are not interpreted in one way or another.

The PBO successfully fulfilled his mandate. All parties supported the creation of the Parliamentary Budget Officer position and, if the current government votes against this motion, it will be admitting that it no longer considers fiscal accountability to be a priority. We in the NDP want transparency.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, the government keeps saying that Bill C-45 deals only with navigation and not the environment. I am having a really hard time understanding the logic of that argument. Navigation is done on waterways. Water contains living organisms. Water is safe to drink when environmental laws are followed. Navigation is therefore closely related to the environment.

Yet, under Bill C-45, many projects will no longer be required to undergo environmental assessments because they will be considered minor. This includes, for example, the construction of pipelines, bridges and other structures that had to undergo such evaluations in the past.

We are not operating in silos. The air we breathe and the water we drink are part of our environment, and human activity has an impact on that environment. By failing to take these factors into account, the government is playing a very dangerous game. The government is jeopardizing the quality of our water and waterways.

I would like to know how the government decided to protect only 97 lakes and 62 rivers, which are mostly found in Conservative ridings.

What is the logic behind these laws? What criteria did the Conservatives use to choose these lakes and rivers? Why are they neglecting thousands of others?

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

Mr. Speaker, today's debate about aboriginal rights reminds us that we need to respect the environment. First nations could teach us a lot about that respect. The natural resources we have today are not unlimited. If we blindly exploit them, what will be left for future generations? How will they feed themselves? Will they have access to potable water?

With Bills C-38 and C-45, the government is endangering the quality of the water in our lakes and rivers. The changes to the environmental assessment process are dismantling all of the mechanisms that allowed us to develop projects while ensuring that environmental risks were minimized. The amendments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act are expediting project approval and depriving the government of insight from subject matter experts. By approving projects that could have serious consequences for the environment, we are saddling future generations with environmental, economic and social debt. What is more, these laws limit the participation of civil society and aboriginals. It is unacceptable that the first peoples of this country, with whom Canada has signed multiple treaties, are not consulted when oil, mining and gas projects are under consideration.

We are already starting to pay for this government's mistakes. Years of inaction on climate change, increasingly lax laws, the clear lack of political will to enforce standards—all of these things have an impact on our lakes and rivers.

For instance, water levels in the St. Lawrence River and the Great Lakes continue to drop. Lake Superior's water level has dropped 34 cm and Lake Huron's has dropped 71 cm. Michigan's governor has taken emergency action. What is the federal government doing? Nothing.

This situation has an impact on navigation, on tourism and on the economy in Quebec and Ontario. In the Arctic, studies have shown that pollution is contaminating the ocean, and therefore fish, seals and all marine mammals. This situation is having a serious impact on Inuit health and the Inuit way of life.

With Bill C-38, the government eliminated the protection of fish and other habitats. With Bill C-45, it did away with the environmental assessment of millions of rivers, not to mention that 95% of our environmental assessment process has disappeared.

What will happen to our fishery after all of our lakes and rivers have been polluted? We are fortunate to live in country that is rich in freshwater resources. Canada has nearly 18% of the world's freshwater supply. Are we really going to spoil it all?

My colleagues and I, and experts as well, have been sounding the alarm for months. In the past few weeks, aboriginal peoples have also expressed their concern. What is it going to take to spur the government to action? People want to be consulted before a project goes ahead, not after.

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples stipulates that:

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

Canada should apply the principles of this declaration to all legislation it enacts. My colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou introduced a bill to that effect on Monday in the hope that the government will honour its commitments.

I am therefore asking the government if it intends to protect all of Canada's lakes and rivers.

Opposition Motion—Aboriginal Canadians

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, over the Christmas holidays our family went to see Les Misérables. It was almost impossible to watch that movie without feeling strongly the parallel situation taking place here in Canada.

In the song Do You Hear the People Sing?, the question is asked:

When the beating of your heart
Echoes the beating of the drums
There is a life about to start
When tomorrow comes!

The drums have been beating strongly in Canada and around the world to draw attention to the greatest social injustice in this country. As a doctor, when I hear the drums I hear a heartbeat. It is the same sixty beats per minute that I heard through a stethoscope years and years ago. The sound is very familiar.

Over these past weeks, it has been very poignant to hear the drums. There was a time we worried that the heartbeat of Chief Theresa Spence was going to stop. I want to thank the Liberal leader for the leadership he gave to that life being saved. I also want everyone to know that the tipping point in the relationship between first nations and the government meant Chief Theresa Spence felt she had to take drastic action. This has to change.

On December 21, January 11, and Monday, as we returned here to Parliament Hill, hundreds of people gathered on the Hill as part of Idle No More, and in solidarity with them, across the country. These protests were about the government's sweeping changes to environmental oversight and to urge real action on aboriginal rights issues.

Again, it has been this feeling:

When the beating of your heart
Echoes the beating of the drums
There is a life about to start
When tomorrow comes!

This is about young people, optimism and how things have to change.

Tomorrow begins today. This motion calls on the government to make the improvement of economic outcomes of first nations, Inuit and Métis a central focus of budget 2013.

I urge the government to support this motion from the hard-working hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.

The government caucus met yesterday. The Prime Minister did not say one word about the issues facing aboriginal people. It has not been a priority for the government. I hope that voting for this motion will be a signal that it will take this issue seriously.

It is time for government members to understand that building human capital is the key factor in improving economic success for aboriginal people and communities, but also for all Canadians. Urgent collaborative action is needed to unlock the human and economic potential in aboriginal communities across this country.

At a time of unprecedented skills shortages, an estimated 400,000 aboriginal Canadians will reach the age to enter the labour market over the next decade. Yet, the significant education gap that exists between Canadian first nations and non-first nations populations high school graduation rates remains a major obstacle to full participation of aboriginal people in the workforce.

Members know that education is the key to success. Appallingly, the high school graduation rate is getting worse under the Conservative government. The Conservatives promised to close the disgraceful education funding gaps. Yet, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs followed that promise with confrontation and actually denied that the per student funding gap exists at all.

According to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, the high school graduation rate for first nation students living on reserve is 35%. By comparison, 77% of non-aboriginal people in Canada have a high school diploma. Further, the number of aboriginal post-secondary graduates lags way behind the rest of Canada. For example, fewer than 10% of aboriginal people in Canada have a university degree compared to the national average of 23%.

The Conservatives goal for improving first nations on reserve high school graduation is an 8% increase over the next five years, as our leader pointed out today in question period. They have no targets for increasing first nations post-secondary education enrolment or graduation. As the Auditor General has noted, at the current rate it would take 28 years for first nations communities to close the high school education gap.

We have asked the government to address this gap in the next budget by working with first nations to bring graduation rates up to the national average on an urgent basis. This was the 10 year target of the Kelowna accord and should be our goal moving forward. Yet, after seven years we have seen zero progress on this from the Conservative government. Talking points cannot change the facts. Idle No More means talking points no more. We actually need action and the truth.

The Centre for the Study of Living Standards has noted that raising educational and labour market outcomes for aboriginal Canadians to the same level as non-aboriginal Canadians would increase the GDP by $36 billion, increase government revenues by $3.5 billion, and reduce government expenditures by $14.2 billion, by 2026.

As the Senate reported in its 2007 study on aboriginal economic development, there is a need to strengthen investments in aboriginal governing capacities that support economic success. However, the government has opted to make significant cuts to aboriginal governing capacities as part of the 2012 budget reductions. Even resources that directly contribute to economic success for aboriginal people are not above being cut from the government's strategy.

Shockingly, on February 12, 2013, the government plans to close the aboriginal Canada portal website, a single window to first nations, Métis and Inuit online resources for government programs and services. The portal includes links to government and non-governmental sources that pertain to employment and human resources. It links employment opportunities and jobs available for aboriginal job seekers across Canada. Employers can even post the job openings for free. The aboriginal Canada portal does not just provide one-stop shopping for employment; it also provides, at very little cost to taxpayers, essential information on topics ranging from claims and treaties to economic development, business, justice and policing. The closure will make it even more difficult for Canadians to navigate an already complicated federal bureaucracy.

This compilation of information on all matters aboriginal in government, currently maintained with a small expenditure, will now be scattered, making it even more difficult for all Canadians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike, to use. One need only look at the statement on the website, which shows all of the places an individual has to now go to find the information that was once there in one-stop shopping.

Clearly one cannot even think about economic development when people are living in third world conditions. The first nations, Inuit and Métis education gap has been widening, as we have said, in terms of both funding and outcomes. Housing shortages are becoming more acute. Water and waste water systems are in crisis, and tragic gaps in terms of first nations health outcomes are continuing unabated.

The Conservatives defend their refusal to deal with the on-reserve housing crisis by claiming they have built 10,000 homes over the past six years. The fact is that they are trying to take credit for falling short of what should have been 13,800 homes built under funding levels predating their government.The government also defends its appalling record on first nations water and waste water by noting that it conducted the largest assessment of safe waste water in this country so we can move forward with prioritization. Yet, almost two years after the federal assessment, 117 first nations communities across Canada are under drinking water advisories, which is an increase of over 23% since 2006. The government has no long-term plan to get a handle on this crisis.

The government study showed it would take $6 billion, over 10 years, to fix this problem. Right now, there is $1.2 billion in investment that is urgently needed. What did we see? We saw $330 million in the last budget, and then the minister had the audacity to re-announce that $330 million the day after the supposedly important January 11 meeting. Talk about hypocrisy. That is insulting.

What more is there? Too many resource development projects are moving forward without aboriginal people receiving a fair share of the economic benefits or being partners in their development.

This motion also calls on the government to commit to action on treaty implementation and to engage in full and meaningful consultation on legislation that affects the rights of aboriginal Canadians, as required by domestic law.

The Conservatives signed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which requires free, prior and informed consent, and then in every piece of correspondence they refer to that pledge as “aspirational”. This was the whole basis of the Crown–first nations gathering in January 2012, where they stated that they would commit to work toward the 250th anniversary of the Royal Proclamation. Absolutely no work has been done with the provinces to honour those treaties or to ensure that first nations are able to share in the prosperity that is Canada.

The failure of the government to even begin to deal with the imperative of sharing Canada's natural resource revenues fairly has resulted in relations with Canada's indigenous population reaching a dangerous tipping point. First nations are pursuing their rights and winning almost every time in the courts, as the leader pointed out in a recent speech. Thousands of aboriginal and non-aboriginal people are demonstrating, as we are seeing, across Canada through Idle No More and online. Almost every resource development activity in Canada, the Conservatives need to remind themselves, that is currently operating or planned is occurring within 200 kilometres of a first nation community or on traditional lands. Despite this, the settling of comprehensive claims agreements between aboriginal people and the government, which address the critical issues surrounding economic development including resource royalties sharing, has proceeded at an astonishingly slow pace.

The Canadian Council of Chief Executives has said that aboriginal people must be true partners in resource and energy projects. Yet the President of the Treasury Board alienated first nations by dismissing their calls for a joint review panel on the Ring of Fire resource development, arguing it would only bring up “irrelevant issues”. Even the Prime Minister's own former senior cabinet minister, Jim Prentice, has chastised the government, saying, “The Crown obligation to engage first nations in a meaningful way has yet to be taken up”.

The number of comprehensive claims settled by the government has fallen steadily since 2005, despite the promise from the Conservatives to revolutionize the land claims process in 2007. As of today, more than half of the nearly 100 agreements under negotiation have been ongoing for at least 16 years. These delays are often the result of the government's negotiation strategy, which embraces a take it or leave it approach rather than flexibility and fairness, and it is quite clear that the negotiators do not have the mandate to compromise.

The frustration of aboriginal people is understandable, given the complete lack of progress on their issues and the refusal of the government to fulfill its legal obligation to consult them on matters that may impact their inherent and/or treaty rights and the fact that we find in government documents that the Conservatives actually see first nations, Inuit and Métis in this country as adversaries.

More recently, that frustration has manifested itself in the failure of consultation about the changes to environmental protection on aboriginal lands and navigable waterways contained in the two latest budget implementation acts.

This type of unilateral action has created a fracture in the relationship between the Conservative government and first nations. It has led to the formation of Idle No More, which precipitated the hastily organized January 11 meeting between the Prime Minister and aboriginal leaders. The fact that coming out of that meeting the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development indicated his belief the government had fulfilled its duty to consult on various controversial bills shows that the Conservatives still do not seem to grasp what true consultation means. There was no consultation with aboriginal people on Bill C-38 or Bill C-45. The minister admitted in committee that there had been no consultation on the aboriginal governance bill. There was consultation on the private member's bill but no consultation on the government bill and even the chief, previously supportive, viewed it as a kind of bait and switch opportunity.

We believe the government should work with aboriginal leaders to establish an arm's length legal advisory committee that would evaluate all draft legislation with the potential to affect aboriginal rights and provide an opinion on the federal government's duty to consult before the legislation is tabled. Given that the aboriginal population is the youngest and fastest growing in Canada and that almost every natural resource development is occurring on aboriginal territorial lands, we believe that if the government truly wants to put all its economic eggs in a natural resources basket, it had better just get with the program and turn this around.

The Prime Minister must understand the gravity of the situation and the potential impact on all Canadians. It is time for action. It is time for the government to work with aboriginal people in Canada toward a new nation-to-nation relationship based on the spirit of partnership, respect and the co-operation for mutual benefit that characterized our original relationship. We are all treaty people. There were two signatories to the document. The 96% of Canadians not from aboriginal backgrounds need to understand the gravity of the situation, and we need to go forward in the House and make sure that happens.

Idle No More will not go away. The young people can see what needs to be done to right past wrongs and to deal with the greatest social and economic injustice facing Canada.

In the week before Christmas I was at the native men's shelter in my riding. It was quite clear. These young men, who had been homeless the week before, were asking me what an omnibus bill is and if it affects their treaty rights. The next night in North Bay, at the Idle No More teach-in with the member from North Bay, we could not believe it. There were a hundred people in the friendship centre going through the PowerPoint presentation of every bill that has affected them that has not had consultation. They are now armed with information and they are ready to fight.

It is really important that we understand that this is difficult. However, the government ignores it at its peril. I ask the government: Can it hear the people sing? When the beating of their hearts echoes the beating of the drums, there is a life about to start when tomorrow comes. That tomorrow is today, right now. The government could show some decent faith by voting for this motion.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak to this motion, tabled by the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. I appreciate the working relationship that we have on the standing committee.

Our government's number one focus is on creating jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity for all Canadians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike. We are seeing the results of this work. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, the global economy remains fragile but Canada has produced more than 900,000 net new jobs in recent years. This is no small feat in the current economic climate.

As we move forward in 2013, our focus remains the economy. We know that in continuing to develop, provide our children with access to good education, train for the job skills of tomorrow, reduce red tape and equip our businesses to succeed worldwide, this includes expanding opportunities for aboriginal peoples to fully participate in the economy. We know there are tremendous opportunities to promote and encourage greater aboriginal participation in the economy and we remain committed to working with willing partners to do exactly that. We are focused on removing barriers to economic development on reserve, helping aboriginal people develop the skills they need to enter the workforce and providing first nation communities and the regions they are located in with greater autonomy to manage their own land and resources.

We can all agree that increasing aboriginal participation in the economy is one of the most effective ways to improve the well-being and quality of life of aboriginal peoples in Canada. It is also vital to Canada's future economic prosperity.

Since the economic action plan was implemented in response to the global economic crisis, Canada has recovered almost all of the output and jobs lost during the recession. The number of jobs has gone up by more than 750,000 since July 2009, and it is now 260,000 higher than the peak reached before the recession, which represents the highest job growth among the G7 countries. These figures are very reassuring to Canadians, in light of the continuing economic uncertainty around the world.

Key to our economic strength is the continued participation of aboriginal peoples in the economy. The natural resource sector is an important case in point. Canada's natural resource sector employs close to 800,000 Canadians. The mining sector is the largest private employer of aboriginal people, who make up some 7.5% of its workforce. Aboriginal people represent 4.3% of the energy sector's workforce and 10% of the oil sands' workforce. The resource sectors also generate billions of dollars' worth of tax royalties and revenues annually to help pay for government programs and services.

Our resource strength is set to continue to expand well into the future. We currently estimate that over the next decade there will potentially be as many as 600 new projects, representing more than $650 billion in investments, across the country in resource development. Some of these will be taking place in northwestern Ontario in the great Kenora riding. These projects will create jobs across our region and throughout Canada and will continue to substantially improve our country's economic prosperity. In fact, the numbers continue to climb as new opportunities are identified.

Resource development is vitally important to aboriginal communities across Canada. Take, for example, Fort McKay First Nation in Alberta. It has the largest business relationship with oil sands producers of any first nation community. Fort McKay has gone from having a single janitorial contract in 1986 to running corporations with reported earnings in 2008 of over $120 million. Unemployment in the community is under 5%. It has a youth centre, a health clinic, and a new housing complex with a hundred homes rented to community members.

Prior to the development of diamond mines in the Northwest Territories, the Tlicho First Nation had small, local businesses in traditional pursuits. Today, it has far more diversified economic activity ranging from retailing to multi-million dollar mining service companies.

There are many more examples of our government partnering with aboriginal communities on resource development projects through the aboriginal business development program. The Kitsaki mining limited partnership is a $3 million commercial mining extraction equipment project for use in the operations of the open-pit and underground La Ronge gold mine project of Golden Band Resources in Saskatchewan. Our government contributed $1.1 million to this project.

Just last week, the minister was in British Columbia to announce new regulations under the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act that would allow for the Kitimat LNG liquefied natural gas facility on the Haisla First Nation's Bees Indian Reserve No. 6 to move forward. This natural gas facility will provide Canada's energy producers with a doorway to overseas markets, in addition to creating well-paying skilled jobs and economic opportunities for the Haisla First Nation and the entire northwestern region of British Columbia.

These economic development projects obviously have economic spinoffs for all sectors of the Canadian economy, and especially for first nations communities. That is why it is important for Canada to do what is necessary to attract international investments in the provinces and territories. This includes regulatory reform north and south of the 60th parallel.

Regulatory processes that are simplified and clearly laid out will give businesses the confidence they need to take advantage of economic opportunities and maximize the use of the resource sector to create jobs for Canadians across Canada, including aboriginal peoples, while still protecting the environment.

In 2009, the government fundamentally changed the way it does business with aboriginal peoples. Instead of promoting economic development using an outdated, ad hoc approach that we had seen used by prior governments, we are focused on forging strategic partnerships with willing partners and developing innovative ways to overcome the traditional structural barriers to economic opportunity in aboriginal communities.

This includes growing private sector partnerships and investment; strengthening aboriginal entrepreneurship; having small business centres on reserves, including isolated and remote first nation communities; developing the aboriginal labour force through skills and trade investments in HRSDC; and enhancing the value of aboriginal assets.

Through this approach, our government is working with its partners to ensure that aboriginal peoples benefit from the same job, income and wealth creation opportunities as other Canadians.

On average, we have created or contributed over $45 million annually to support aboriginal business development, aboriginal participation in large-scale energy and resource development projects and improved access to capital for aboriginal business development opportunities.

We are also working with aboriginal peoples to remove the structural barriers that are holding them back from fully participating in the economy. For example, just this past month the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development announced that eight more first nations will soon be operating or developing their land codes under the First Nations Land Management Act. These eight first nations joined the 18 first nations that were added last January, bringing the total number of first nations benefiting from this regime to 69 first nation communities. This regime gives first nations freedom from the 34 land-related sections under the Indian Act, and provides them with greater autonomy by taking the minister out of the equation and giving them back control over their reserve lands and its resources. More specifically, first nations can now determine how they want to develop, protect, and use their own land on reserve.

The benefits of this regime are clear. First nations operating with their own land codes are successfully taking advantage of more and more economic development opportunities because they are able to operate at the speed of business. Imagine that.

For example, Whitecap Dakota First Nation in Saskatchewan has been operating under the First Nations Land Management Act since 2004. Since that time, over 700 jobs have been created in the community and currently generate approximately $90 million in revenue annually. It is incredible.

Last spring, Bill C-38 amended the FNLMA to enable first nations operating under the act to further unlock the economic development potential of their reserve lands. These amendments simplified the process of developing their own land codes, further removing the legislative barriers that were preventing or delaying first nations from taking full advantage of the benefits of assuming full responsibility for their lands under FNLMA.

More recently, as part of Bill C-45, the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, our government introduced amendments to the land designation provisions of the Indian Act that will allow first nations to more quickly pursue economic development opportunities through leasing portions of the reserve land while retaining full ownership of their lands. These amendments respond to many first nations who have expressed frustration at the cumbersome and time-consuming process that existed previously and which had negatively impacted their ability to attract and retain investors at the speed of business.

Unfortunately, there has been a lot of misinformation spread in the media and in the first nation communities as to what these amendments involve. I want to reiterate that these amendments have nothing to do with land surrender. They have to do with the leasing of land for economic development purposes through a decision-making process that takes place in first nation communities by their citizens and their government. It really is as simple as that.

Our government is working with our aboriginal partners as well as with the provincial and territorial governments and the private sector to increase aboriginal participation in key sectors of the Canadian economy.

For example, in 2010, we launched the strategic partnerships initiative, which helps aboriginal Canadians take advantage of complex, market-driven opportunities for resource development, particularly in priority economic sectors such as forestry, fisheries, mining, energy and agriculture.

To this day the initiative has supported more than 60 aboriginal communities and some of the largest resource development opportunities across Canada, including the Ring of Fire in northern Ontario and the lower Churchill energy project in Atlantic Canada.

However, we are not only focused on resource projects south of 60. We also know that Canada's north is home to world-class natural resources, representing tremendous economic potential.

During his trip to the north this past August, the Prime Minister stated that our government is committed to ensuring that northerners benefit from the tremendous reserves of natural resource found in their region. For the benefits to flow, it is necessary to get resource projects up and running in an effective, responsible and sustainable way, to put agreements in place with territorial governments and first nations to ensure that revenues generated by these initiatives are to their direct benefit and stay where they belong, up in the north.

To this end, our government has taken significant steps to reduce red tape and streamline regulatory requirements in the north. We introduced Bill C-47, the northern jobs and growth act, in the House of Commons on November 6, 2012. This bill is currently before committee and if passed into law will increase certainty and help create a better climate for private sector investment and development across the territories. The bill includes the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act and the Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board Act. It also includes amendments related to the Yukon Surface Rights Board Act.

These measures fulfill outstanding legislative obligations under the Nunavut land claim agreement, as well as the Gwich'in and Sahtu land claim agreements. They also respond to calls from aboriginal groups, government and the private sector for improvements to regulatory processes in the north.

Improving the regulatory regimes for the abundant natural resources in the north could help Canada prosper and could create billions of jobs for decades. The meaningful action we are taking in the Northern Jobs and Growth Act will help release this potential.

Our government will continue to develop Canada's abundant natural resources to benefit Canadians, including aboriginal peoples. We have a vision of a future in which the aboriginal peoples are autonomous and prosperous, manage their own activities and make a significant contribution to the well-being of the entire country.

Our government continues to take concrete steps to build the conditions necessary for aboriginal communities to participate more fully in Canada's economy.

In closing, we remain committed to working with willing partners to improve the long-term prosperity, health and sustainability of aboriginal people, their communities and all Canadians.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for York South—Weston.

I am very proud to speak to the motion about the need for the House of Commons to finally get serious and understand its obligation to address the longstanding moral, economic, social and historic deficit that has left so much of our country in absolutely abominable condition, which must change.

We have always told ourselves that Canada is the greatest country in the world. The international index of human indicators of health and social well-being always placed Canada right at the very top until it started to factor in the fact there are two worlds in Canada. There is the non-native world and then there is the fourth world that the aboriginal communities are living in. When that was factored in, Canada started to drop year-by-year. We are now down to eighth place, that is, taken as a whole. In terms of first nation communities, we are down in 63rd place among communities in the world.

We are seeing talk from the government. Conservatives have their message box. They have press releases and they expect the young generation marching out there in the streets to be patient. We have seen from the Idle No More campaign an unprecedented response across this country, a virtual uprising of people who have come to feel they are hostages in their own country, that somehow they are a colonized people in their own land. They are saying they are not putting up with it any more.

There is a sense of urgency, an urgency that needs us to move beyond party lines, because this problem did not start with the present Conservative government. This is well over a century in the making. Now is the time to pay up and start fixing some of these fundamental problems. We have 39% of first nation communities at high risk from poor water quality and 34% at medium risk. That amounts to some 83% of first nation communities in this country not having safe drinking water. How can a country this rich say that is okay?

How can we tell young people to be patient when they have substandard systems of education, set up in a manner that is a form of systemic discrimination? Every child in this country walks into a school with an inalienable set of rights unless they live on a first nation, and then they get whatever the government gives them. Those kids are being told to be patient.

They were told to be patient in Attawapiskat when, under the federal government's watch, diesel fumes from a contaminant leak were coming up in classrooms and the kids were passing out in the grade 1 classroom and coming home stinking of diesel fuel from their daily exposure to benzines and xylenes, cancer-causing agents. The families were told to be patient, that it would be fixed. Well it was never fixed. It went on year after year.

That is why people are marching in the streets, because they are not going to be patient any longer. This generation has seen that the time has now come to pay up. It is never convenient to do the right thing. It is never an opportune time to do the right thing. We do the right thing because at a certain point in our juncture or history, it becomes clear that we are not the nation we were meant to be unless we meet that fundamental debt, unless we pay that debt. That is what we are called to do.

We need to deal with the education deficit. I speak about this issue because I saw it through a child's eyes. That is probably the thing I most learned in this job, seeing what it was like through the eyes of a child in Attawapiskat, Shannen Koostachin, who saw her life passing before her because she had gone to school in crappy portables. She knew she had a substandard education. She knew that if she did not get that one chance to get a better education, it would be too late for her and her generation. I saw that look in her eyes. I saw that look in the eyes of those children and I realized that all the talk that goes on in the House is not enough. We need to start seeing action.

There are a number of steps we need to take in terms of economic development and meeting basic treaty commitments. I would like to talk about treaties, because there is an idea out there that we won, they lost, and why do they not just shut up? What is their problem? That is not what the treaties were about.

When Treaty 9 was signed, representing a large region of the Nishnawbe Aski territory I represent, they went from community to community and asked the people to sign an agreement to share the land. Some people may think this happened in ancient times, but it did not. I know people whose families signed the treaty. Grand Chief Stan Louttit's grandfather signed that treaty. Theresa Spence's grandfather signed the treaty. Government representatives came to Fort Hope saying that this would be a great agreement, gave everyone eight bucks, and told the first nation people: “You go off and do your thing and we'll do ours”.

However, Chief Elijah Moonias—and we have another version of Chief Elijah Moonias alive today in Marten Falls dealing with the Ring of Fire—stood up and said to the people: “Wait a minute. What's going on here? The white guys have come up and offered us eight bucks and they're telling us that we don't have to give anything in return”. That is in the records. Chief Elijah Moonias warned the people about signing the treaty because they did not know what they were signing on to.

The records also show when first nations were signing Treaty 9 that one of the reasons they felt they needed to sign was that they were worried about the future. They were willing to share the land, but in exchange they wanted education. It was actually in the Treaty 9 documents that they saw that the future for their kids was an education. So the white commissioners signed that. However, they gave them the residential schools. They took their children away from them and tried to destroy them as a people. That is what they got in return for signing Treaty 9.

If we look at the history of Treaty 9, before the community leaders signed it, they asked two clear questions. These people communicated orally, they did not write it down, but they asked for clarification at the treaty signings. One question was: “What will happen to our hunting and fishing rights and our ability to use our lands?” The government answered: “Those will not be impacted in any way”. Well, they were lied to there.

The second question they asked was: “Will we be forced to live on these reserves that you're setting up?” The government answered: “No, you'll be free to live wherever you want”. This was also a promise that was broken because they are stuck on the reserves. For example, in Attawapiskat, the community cannot even be expanded to put in proper houses. All that land either belongs to the federal government or the province and they are stuck on these postage stamp-size reserves, but right beside them is one of the largest diamond mines in the world, and just down the road there will be gold mines. However, when the treaty was signed, the government said that they would not be impacted in any way in their ability to use the land in traditional ways.

Now the current Conservative government might not recognize those treaties, but they have been recognized by the Constitution of this country under section 35. They have been recognized in court decision after court decision. There is no ambivalence about the need to consult because the first nation people never gave up the right to use the land, which brings us to Bill C-45.

Bill C-45 is the government's omnibus legislation where it decided to strip protection of waters and basic environmental protections from all the northern lakes and rivers, but it did not have the guts to do it publicly. The government was not going to go and tell the first nation communities that it was open season on their waterways, the Albany River, Moose River and Attawapiskat River. No, the Conservatives stuck that into a budget bill and tried to ram it through without people noticing, and they figured they would get away with it.

However, now people are saying: “Wait a minute, you didn't consult. You didn't do your legal duty to consult”. That is what the courts have shown and that is what is in our Constitution.

The time has come to start addressing these issues. We are in this relationship together. Although it has been a very dysfunctional relationship, it is the primary relationship in this country. It is the first relationship. We must recognize that we are all treaty people, that we all share this land, and that we will all make the country what it should be when we make sure that our young first nation children have the same opportunities as everyone else. Until we do that, we will never be the country we are supposed to be. This is the moment for all parliamentarians to start making it happen. Let us tell this generation that they are not going to be betrayed the way the last generation was and the generation before them.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his excellent discourse and putting this in the historical context that it needs. I know our government friends are sometimes very defensive of their fairly poor record, but it did not start with them. This is probably the largest, historic, moral, cultural, economic deficit in Canada, and it has to be paid.

What we have seen from Idle No More is that people are frustrated. They are not willing to sit back and hear more talk in the House of Commons. This has been talked about again and again, and the responses have been talking points, press releases but no concrete action. What we are seeing in communities across this country is an uprising of young people who say they are not going to sacrifice this generation, as other generations have been sacrificed.

In terms of the respect for treaty rights and the fact that these are rights defined by the Constitution and defined in court case after court case as rights that are inherent on the land, and in terms of the issue of Bill C-45 and the decision of the government to strip basic environmental protection so that it can push things through for big oil and big mining without any consultation, what does my hon. colleague think of the lack of respect and the lack of trust that is going to be engendered in first nation communities who are seeing that once again the government is more than willing to walk over their rights?

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

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the minister because at the heart of the matter is how one defines a relationship on a nation-to-nation basis. The government continues to impose a top-down agenda. It claims that it has consulted, but if it truly has consulted, then why the wave of opposition to almost every bill that the government introduces? Bill C-45, the omnibus budget bill, sparked protests from coast to coast to coast because of the lack of consultation and because the bill directly impacted the rights of first nations in their own communities. The government did not consult in any way, shape or form on that legislation.

The Auditor General indicated in the 2011 report that in order to make meaningful change, first nations would have to fully participate in the development of legislative reforms and they would also have to co-lead discussions on identifying credible funding mechanisms.

If the government is truly committed to changing the nature of the relationship, would the minister today indicate, on point 8 of the Assembly of First Nations request, that the government has a dedicated cabinet committee with a secretary within the Privy Council with specific responsibility to the first nation-crown relationship to oversee implementation? Has that committee been appointed?

[John Duncan, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion by the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. The member's motion calls for improved economic outcomes for first nations, Inuit and Métis, and a commitment on treaty implementation and meaningful consultation on legislation with aboriginal peoples in Canada.

I am proud of our government's record on improving the lives of aboriginal people in Canada. Since 2006, our government has made unprecedented investments that will make a concrete difference in the lives of aboriginal people, including skills training, housing on reserves, potable water, schools, treaty rights, protection of the rights of women and the resolution of land claims.

For example, we have built over 30 new schools on reserve and renovated more than 200 others. We have invested in a major way in safe drinking water systems. We have built over 10,000 new homes and renovated thousands more. We have increased funding for child and family services by 25%. We have legislated that the Canadian Human Rights Act will apply to first nation individuals living on reserves. This was a glaring discriminatory provision in the Canadian Human Rights Act, which we reversed, over the objections of the opposition.

We introduced legislation to improve the accountability of first nation governments to their people. We introduced legislation to create an open and transparent elections process, necessary for economic development. We have settled over 80 outstanding land claims, many of which had been languishing for 20 years in the hopper. We have invested in over 700 projects, linking aboriginals across Canada with job training and counselling services.

I have had a long history with first nations and have seen a lot of change over the years. I am very encouraged to see firsthand many examples of strong first nation leadership driving very positive change.

Aboriginal peoples represent the fastest growing population in Canada. Given the country's labour shortages and the proximity of first nation communities to resource development projects, there is a tremendous economic opportunity before us. That is why we have consistently invested in measures to improve aboriginal participation in the economy.

Like economic action plan 2012, economic action plan 2013 will be focused on jobs and opportunities for all Canadians, including first nations, Inuit and Métis.

Finding ways to ensure that first nations can benefit from resource development is a priority. It is good for first nations, for Canada, for our Métis and for our Inuit. Our government is investing in measures that will help ensure that first nations are well-positioned to take advantage of these and other economic opportunities. For example, our government has invested in over 700 initiatives to link aboriginal people with job training, mentoring and other supports. We also invest more than $400 million annually in direct funding for aboriginal skills development and training.

My department's major projects and investment funds initiative has also contributed over $22 million to support aboriginal participation in 87 energy and resource projects, such as hydro, mining, renewable energy and forestry. These contributions have helped create over 400 jobs and levered just over $307 million from public and private debt and equity financing sources.

In addition to these investments, our government has worked to modernize legislation to allow first nations and aboriginal organizations to operate at the speed of business. Last year, our government introduced Bill C-27, the first nations financial transparency act to allow first nations community members access to the same basic financial information about their government and their elected officials available to all other Canadians.

More specifically, the bill would require first nation elected officials to publish their statements of remuneration and expenses as well as their audited consolidated financial statements. The bill would provide community members with the information required to make informed decisions about their leadership and to provide investors with the confidence they need to enter into financial partnerships with first nations.

Now that the legislation is before the Senate committee, we hope to see it passed into law very soon.

The first nations financial transparency act was driven by grassroots first nation members who were calling for greater accountability from their governments. Many of these people have suffered retribution, including intimidation and verbal and physical abuse, for having spoken in support of greater transparency and accountability.

Another important legislative initiative that would foster jobs and economic growth is Bill C-47, the northern jobs and growth act, which includes the Nunavut planning and project assessment act and the Northwest Territories surface rights board act, along with related amendments to the Yukon Surface Rights Board Act. Together, these measures would fulfill outstanding obligations under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, as well as the Gwich'in and Sahtu land claims agreements, and respond to calls for measures to streamline and improve regulatory processes in the north. The bill is currently being studied by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

Amendments to the land designation sections of the Indian Act that comprised a portion of Bill C-45 would also create economic opportunities. These amendments would speed up the process for leasing lands for economic development purposes, while allowing first nations to maintain full ownership of their lands. As a result, it would provide greater flexibility for first nations to act on time-sensitive economic development opportunities. These amendments responded directly to first nations who had expressed frustration to me, to the standing committee and to other members with the overly complex and lengthy process of designating land, which was an impediment to investment opportunities.

I quote from Chief Shane Gottfriedson, chief of the Tk'emlúps Indian Band in British Columbia, speaking about these changes to the land designation process in Bill C-45. “[Before the changes] it was just horrific for us to try and do any sort of business within our territory”.

Chief Reginald Bellerose of the Muskowekwan First Nation in Saskatchewan also spoke in favour of the changes: “[Muskowekwan First Nation] recognizes the positive steps the federal government has made to assist First Nation communities to operate in a more efficient and commercial manner. Specifically, Bill C-45 provides for a more efficient land designation vote process”.

We have heard from first nations that they want to be able to move at the speed of business and we continue to work with willing partners to remove economic barriers to the success of first nation communities as they seek out opportunities to generate wealth for their communities and their members.

If further proof was needed that legislative action can speed economic development, I would like to point to my announcement just last week on new regulations under the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act that will allow the Kitimat natural gas facility on the Haisla First Nation's Bees Indian Reserve No. 6 to move forward. The Kitimat LNG facility will provide Canada's energy producers with a doorway to overseas markets. It will create well-paying jobs and economic growth opportunities for the Haisla First Nation and the entire northwest region of British Columbia.

We have also invested in modernizing the land management regimes for first nations so that they can unlock the potential of their lands and natural resources. This past month I announced that eight more first nations will soon be operating under the First Nations Land Management Act. These first nations have chosen freedom from 34 land-related sections of the Indian Act, which were holding them back from achieving their full economic potential. They now have power over their own reserve lands and resources so that they can take advantage of economic activities without wading through bureaucratic red tape.

This is in addition to 18 other first nations that I announced last January, making a total of 69 first nations that can now develop their own land codes, which will allow them to more quickly and effectively pursue economic opportunities and create jobs. Through these initiatives we are putting in place the building blocks for future success. These foundational pieces will help prepare communities to take advantage of new economic opportunities available to them.

We are a business-like government. We like to obtain concrete results. We are making unprecedented investments in the spirit of partnership and we recognize historical grievances. This is why we have settled outstanding land claims that have been long languishing.

The government is committed to continue building on the progress we have made to improve living conditions for first nations and to create jobs and economic opportunities in their communities. Specifically, we are committed to expediting comprehensive claims and treaty implementation. We all recognize that while much progress has been made, more work remains to be done. We are taking steps to improve land claim and self-government negotiation processes. This includes identifying alternatives to negotiations that meet the interests of the parties as well as practical measures to make sure that first nations are ready and able to fully engage and participate in the process.

In some cases there are alternatives to comprehensive claims and we are good with that. For example, the Haisla, the Squamish First Nation and Westbank First Nation are not specifically interested in pursuing treaties. They realize there are other measures that can and have been put in place, which are expediting the conditions for economic prosperity for their communities. We are also involved currently in self-government negotiations on a number of historic treaties. An example of that is the Sioux Valley Dakota First Nation in Manitoba, where we anticipate imminently the conclusion of self-government negotiations.

There is a clear link between the strength of the relationship and the economic prosperity of first nations and all Canadians. Protection of aboriginal treaty rights and consultations with aboriginals are enshrined in our laws, which have been passed by this Parliament. This government fully respects our duty to consult. That is why we have conducted more than 5,000 consultations annually. As minister, I have visited over 50 first nation communities since 2010 and I have had hundreds of productive meetings with first nation chiefs, councillors and community members across Canada.

This government also undertook unprecedented consultations on Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act. We are currently in the midst of intensive consultations with first nation leaders, teachers, students and educators in the development of a first nation education act. I would like to highlight some of the important work that has been done on the development of a first nation education act.

In economic action plan 2012, our government committed to work with willing partners to establish a first nation education act that will establish the structures and standards to support strong and accountable education systems on reserve. Through intense consultations, we have committed to work with willing partners to have the legislation in place by September 2014. We are determined to follow through on this commitment.

First nation students are the only children in Canada whose education system is not governed by legislation. Our government, unlike previous governments, is committed to bringing forward such legislation. The legislation would provide the modern framework necessary to build standards and structures, strengthen governance and accountability, and provide the mechanism for stable, predictable and sustainable funding.

I would like to add that, as recently as yesterday, I met with the first nation education steering committee in British Columbia. We have other examples, such as Mi’kmaw Kina’matnewey in Nova Scotia, where these parameters are already in place. An important part of our consultation is to meet with first nation authorities that have already done much work in this area and are obtaining results of the kind that are setting a great example.

We are making other investments. We have also invested an additional $100 million over three years to help ensure readiness for the new education system to be put in place by September 2014. We committed an incremental $175 million, on top of the $200 million that we spend on an annual basis, to new school projects. It is unfortunate that the member who brought forward today's motion chose to vote against these investments in first nation education.

This past December I announced the launch of intensive face-to-face consultation with first nation parents, students, leaders, educators and others on the initiative. The first in a series of sessions began in Halifax last week. The second session will be in Saskatoon next week.

I want to state very clearly that there is no legislation drafted. The purpose of these ongoing consultations is to get views and feedback so that legislation can be drafted. The input gathered during consultations will help shape the drafting of the legislation. Once drafted, the proposed legislation will be shared with every first nation across Canada, as well as with provincial governments and other stakeholders for feedback.

Modern land claims and self-government agreements can also provide a path to self-sufficiency and unlock economic opportunities. We are working in partnership with first nations on a new results-based approach to treaty and self-government negotiations to achieve more treaties in less time so that aboriginal communities can begin to unlock economic opportunities that can be realized through treaties.

Under the new approach, our government will focus its resources on tables with the greatest potential for success to bring treaties to fruition. The chief commissioner of the B.C. Treaty Commission is strongly supportive of our new approach, saying that she is encouraged our government is accelerating progress. We have heard first nations' concerns and we are delivering necessary change. It is also clear that there are options to the treaty process. Our goal is to achieve treaties where we can and to develop options to treaties where we cannot.

I will conclude by saying that moving forward will take time and dedicated effort from all parties. We are fully committed to taking further steps along this journey. We will continue to focus on real structural reforms and increasing the effectiveness of long-term investments.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking today in support of this important motion put forward by my colleague for Nanaimo—Cowichan. I wish to thank her for her tireless efforts and dedication. I consider it a privilege to work alongside such a strong Canadian representative in our ranks.

Today we have a motion of extreme importance before us, one that can represent the start of a better future for all Canadians, if all parties in the House seize upon this important moment.

For nearly two months we have seen the issues of indigenous nations of Canada brought to the fore in ways that have never been seen before, with the Idle No More movement. We have seen peaceful protests, combined with proud expressions of aboriginal culture, raise awareness of these issues like never before. Who knew it would be a round dance revolution that would start this discussion in earnest? This movement has brought many issues onto the public agenda, some of which we are focusing on today and that call upon the government to act immediately.

However, from my observations, Idle No More comes back to some very simple principles: respect, partnership and a better future for all who now call this land home. When we talk about respect, we are talking about respecting the treaties and subsequent agreements that the Crown and Canada have entered into with indigenous nations. When we are talking about partnership, we are talking about the relationship those treaties envisioned: two peoples working together for the prosperity of all. When we talk about a better future for all, we are talking about what is possible if we finally tackle these outstanding issues rather than leaving them to fester.

These principles are the very foundation of our country. Do not forget: first peoples in this country were not conquered or defeated in some major military battle. Our ancestors welcomed the newcomers to their land, shared it with them and signed treaties that would become the legal foundation for the Canada of today.

These treaties that Canada and the Crown signed with aboriginal nations are an integral part of our foundational documents, along with the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We, the NDP, have been conscious of those facts for a long time now, and our policies and approaches incorporate them.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the current government. Its actions and words demonstrate that either it does not know our history or it is choosing to ignore it.

APTN News recently uncovered a staggering example of this very problem. On January 25, it reported details of a leaked confidential accounting of the Prime Minister's January 11 meeting with some first nations leaders. In that document, some very disturbing comments made by the President of the Treasury Board came to light. The document began by stating that he referred to the meeting as a meeting with “a group of at risk Canadians...”. Let that sink in for a moment. The minister of the Crown referred to the leaders and their peoples, not as Cree, Mi’kmaq, Ojibwa, Algonquin, or the proper name of any aboriginal nation; he referred to them as a group of at risk Canadians.

Some might call that a mistake, and others might call it a bad start, when restarting our foundational relationship. Most would call it disrespectful. I would hope that the hon. member for Parry Sound—Muskoka would take the chance at some point during this debate to apologize for that poor choice of words.

Unfortunately, that was not the only comment that came from the member at that meeting. The document went on to quote the President of the Treasury Board admitting that he did not understand the treaty relationship or why that discussion needs to occur before economic development.

I have to question why the Prime Minister took a minister with such lack of knowledge into the meeting, while benching his Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who I know has a very strong grasp of the issues, into that meeting. I have a great deal of respect for the knowledge and experience of the hon. member for Labrador, and I cannot help but wonder how serious the Prime Minister is when he leaves such a resource sitting on the sidelines.

The hon. member for Labrador has considerable experience in federal and provincial government consultations. The member for Parry Sound—Muskoka and President of the Treasury Board provided a good example of his lack of knowledge. According to the media in his riding, a few days after the January 11 meeting, he explained what he meant by “consultation”. Questioned about the fact that aboriginals were not consulted about Bill C-45, he said that there was a consultation; it was called a federal election. Wrong answer.

Recently, seemingly in response to the Idle No More movement, the government has started to use some language about its duties that I have found rather worrisome. The Prime Minister and his ministers have started to say they are happy to “work with willing partners” when it comes to dealing with outstanding aboriginal issues. The last time I checked, the Government of Canada had a duty to consult and accommodate all aboriginal peoples, not just those the government believes are willing. The government needs to understand it cannot ignore the situations it sees as more difficult. It might be harder to arrive at solutions in those cases, but it will not get any easier by simply ignoring them. As an example, why should the Innu of Labrador find that the Government of Canada will work with them because the government might consider them more willing, while the Innu from Quebec, represented by my good friend from Manicouagan, have their longstanding grievances ignored because the government is not willing to talk to them?

The motion before us today calls upon the government to “commit to action on treaty implementation and full and meaningful consultation on legislation that affects the rights of Aboriginal Canadians, as required by domestic and international law.” However, as we know, the Constitution and international law are continually evolving thanks to new legal instruments, such as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and court rulings.

I find it sad that I have to remind the House that aboriginal people are among the small number of groups that constantly have to turn to the courts to have their basic constitutional rights respected.

It is estimated that the Government of Canada spends $300 million a year opposing the rights of aboriginal peoples before the courts. More often than not, the government loses those cases. The government has spent billions of dollars in recent decades trying to stop the inevitable, and meanwhile, court decisions are not implemented in a timely manner and progress continues to be impeded.

Earlier this month the Federal Court ruled in the Daniels decision that Métis and non-status aboriginals are Indians under the Constitution Act of 1867. This decision could have big implications once negotiations around its implementation are completed. This case was brought forward 13 years ago by the Métis leader Harry Daniels. Sadly, Harry passed away in 2004, eight years before this decision.

Thirteen years is a long time to have a case before the courts, not to mention it being very costly. For 13 years both Liberal and Conservative governments spent millions upon millions trying to deny Métis and non-status people their rights under the Constitution.

The government has yet to publicly state if it will appeal this ruling. If history is a guide, it is very likely the government will.

Some members on the government benches might be wondering what this has to do with the motion before us today. My answer is simple: one cannot properly act on implementing rights or start to take part in meaningful consultations while at the same time fighting the very concept of these rights in the courts.

In closing, the Conservative government has a lot to learn about this, and I sincerely hope it will begin doing things differently so we can see some real progress. In June 2008, the Prime Minister stood in this place and apologized for residential schools, and he promised a new relationship. Nearly five years later, it is quite clear that very little has changed for the better. We can accomplish great things, and quickly, when there is political will to do so. We in the official opposition have that will.

This motion is meant to help build a better future for everyone.

Meegwetch.

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

Mr. Speaker, what we have is a fundamental difference on how to move forward. The government has invested in some things; there have been some investments in education, housing and infrastructure. However, it is always top-down. If the government were serious about moving forward, it would work in a spirit of true partnership and consultation to bring first nations, Inuit and Métis up to the standard of living that the rest of Canadians expect.

If it is going so well, why have we had the Tsilhqot'in obtain leave to appeal to the Supreme Court on issues around aboriginal rights and title to the land? This is directly tied to economic development because this is a court case that has been going on for, I believe, two decades, with regard to logging in British Columbia. If it is going so well, why have Frog Lake and Mikisew Cree filed a notice of application for judicial review with the Federal Court in Ottawa with regard to Bill C-38 and Bill C-45? It is because they do not feel the government consulted appropriately around developing environmental policies, their implementation, and their impact on first nations communities.

Therefore, there is a fundamental difference about how to proceed here.

Motions in amendment

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister referenced a number of abuses of the immigration system, how the deportation process has been abused and the need, with which we concur, to improve the immigration system to ensure that serious criminals should not enjoy sanctuary in Canada and to provide necessary security for Canadians. All these are matters in which the House can concur.

However, Bill C-43 purports to address serious foreign criminality, which in fact is the aim of the parent bill, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. However, some of the provisions of Bill C-43 continue to remain troubling and some, in fact, may well contravene the charter. My colleague from Winnipeg North has suggested amendments, which I trust will enjoy support from all in this place.

My remarks this morning will first address some of the specific concerns with Bill C-43, including charter concerns. Second, and not unrelated, I will raise the question of why no report of charter inconsistency has yet been tabled by the Minister of Justice, pursuant to the exigencies of section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act.

Before turning to these considerations there are two troubling situations from last year that warrant mention at the outset. In both cases a young permanent Canadian resident was deported to a war-torn, impoverished country. As these two young men were alone and unable to speak the local language, they were susceptible to the many criminal terrorist organizations in that country, Somalia, that prey on vulnerable youth. Indeed, in one of the cases the United Nations Human Rights Committee found that Canada jeopardized the right to life of the young man in question and was therefore in violation of its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

These two young permanent residents of Canada, Saeed Jama and Jama Warsame, though they had been here since childhood, had indeed committed offences, mostly drug related, and as such deportation proceedings were initiated against them following their convictions. That is as it should be. When non-citizens commit crimes in Canada deportation is a reasonable option. However, I offer the case of Mr. Jama and Mr. Warsame to illustrate the perspective nuances and complicating factors that might arise in deportation cases and to underline the importance of due process and the right to appeal deportation orders, not only in matters of the criminal processes the minister has rightly mentioned and referenced but notably on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

As we seek, quite rightly, to streamline our immigration and deportation processes it is critical to ensure that humanitarian and compassionate considerations, as well as charter rights to security of the person and fundamentals of due process are not marginalized in the name of short-run expediency. Regrettably, the effect of the bill before us does precisely that. First, it reduces the threshold at which a conviction results in automatic deportation with no possibility of appeal from a sentence of two years to a sentence of six months.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has defended this change by arguing that judges have been issuing sentences of two years less a day in order to circumvent the statute. In fact, judges issue such sentences because two years is the dividing line between federal and provincial incarceration. Canadian citizens regularly receive sentences of two years less a day, thus demonstrating that immigration status is patently not the reason for such sentencing.

Furthermore, if the government is so concerned about sentences of two years less a day, why is it no less concerned about sentences of six months less a day? The standard should not be any arbitrary number of months but rather the qualitative seriousness of the offence. This brings me to the point that has been noted in prior debate on the bill. Many of the offences that result in six month sentences in no way justify automatic deportation with no possibility of appeal.

Bill C-43 would establish a situation where a person could be brought here as an infant, be raised here, be as much a Canadian as the rest of us and then be automatically expelled without due process for making a recording in a movie theatre or, since the coming into force of Bill C-10, for possessing six marijuana plants. At a time when the government is intent on ushering in new and longer mandatory minimum sentences with respect to new offences, it can hardly be said about the Canadian justice system that there is necessarily a correlation between the length of a sentence and the seriousness, let alone the serious criminality, of the offence.

In particular, if the Conservatives wish to evince a genuine desire to rid Canada of serious criminals to ensure that these criminals would be brought to justice pursuant to our international obligations in this regard as well, why do they not commit adequate resources to the war crimes program to prosecute war criminals in Canada, as I have repeatedly urged them to do? Indeed, the remedy of deporting a war criminal may result either in a serious war criminal not being held accountable for justice violations at all, or in the reverse, being sent to a country where there is a substantial risk of torture or other cruel or degrading punishment. In either case, what we need at this point is an enhanced war crimes program so that we can deal with the serious war criminals in this country for whom the deportation remedy is not a remedy at all.

A second problem with the legislation is that it would allow the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism to deny temporary resident status for up to three years on the basis, as has been mentioned, of undefined public policy considerations. Even given the requirement that was added at committee, that the government produce an annual report listing and justifying such denials, this change would still carve out a sphere of unaccountable ministerial discretion and could lead to the further politicization of our immigration system. As a matter of fundamental fairness, people affected by government decisions should be informed of the reasons leading up to those decisions and allowed to present evidence in their favour. Bill C-43 would deny them that right. The legislation would also prohibit the minister from considering humanitarian and compassionate concerns in certain cases, which could also violate a number of Canada's international obligations.

In fact, several elements of the bill may contravene not only international agreements but our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The automatic deportation of individuals to situations of torture, terror and grave danger raises serious concerns with respect to section 7, the right to life, liberty and security of the person. As well, by denying the right to appeal the deportation orders and by empowering the minister to deny entry on arguably arbitrary and ill-defined grounds, the bill may violate the principles of fundamental justice.

These inconsistencies with the charter brush up against section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act. Here, the Minister of Justice must, as stated in the act:

—examine...every Bill introduced in or presented to the House of Commons by a minister of the Crown, in order to ascertain whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Minister shall report any such inconsistency to the House of Commons at the first convenient opportunity.

Yet, the Minister of Justice has tabled no such report on any bill or on this bill. This is not the first time that he has failed to do so when the government has introduced legislation that poses constitutional concerns. When I raised this issue at the justice committee hearings on Bill C-45 as well as in the House, the minister avoided the question. Indeed, a justice department employee is suing the government because he claims that he was suspended for raising this issue in court. I am not suggesting that the minister is deliberately violating the Department of Justice Act, but I await the minister's explanation of why he has apparently not been acting in accordance with it with respect to a number of bills, particularly if one takes the omnibus set of bills such as Bill C-10 with arguably constitutionally suspect provisions, as well as the one before us today in the so-called faster removal of foreign criminals act.

The title of the legislation is sufficiently disconcerting that I cannot close without addressing it. Many of these so-called foreign criminals referred to in Bill C-43 are long-time Canadian residents. To put that title on the bill is to pejoratively and prejudicially mischaracterize them at the outset and does harm to all our constituents.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to speak to this important bill on behalf of my constituents of Surrey North.

It is safe to say that dealing with those non-citizens who commit serious crimes in Canada is essential and something in which we as New Democrats strongly believe. Unfortunately, the bill leaves much to be desired. Bill C-43 misses the mark and fails to address any of the holes with regard to training, allocation of resources and monitoring within the public service agencies that deal with non-citizens. Moreover, the bill would not protect public safety as the Conservatives would like everyone to believe.

Not only is the bill flawed in its content, but it also paints newcomers in a negative light. The bill redefines serious criminality for the purpose of access to an appeal of termination of admissibility. The bill would place increased discretionary powers in the hands of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration by bluntly removing all necessary checks and balances that are in place.

Newcomers arrive on Canada's shores with the same goal as those who have been living here for generations. They want to build a better life for themselves and their families. The majority of newcomers never break the law, yet the Conservatives would paint with the same brush the few criminals and the many non-violent, non-criminal newcomers who arrive in Canada each year.

Let me be clear. We strongly support the quick removal of violent and dangerous non-citizen criminals.

Unfortunately, Bill C-43 would not succeed in its aims, but rather would give sweeping discretionary powers to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration while completely ignoring much needed training and resources.

A number of people who spoke at committee pointed out that law enforcement agencies and immigration services are severely lacking resources. Our public service employees are lacking the resources to deal with people who do not comply with the current citizenship and immigration regulations and laws. The Conservatives know it is unfair to ask these already overburdened agencies to do more with fewer resources.

The Conservatives also know it is inappropriate to relieve the immigration minister of the responsibility to examine humanitarian circumstances.

The fact of the matter is that the Conservatives do not care. What they do care about is ramming through their radical Conservative agenda while hiding from oversight and avoiding accountability. The government has avoided accountability before. We saw it with the F-35s. The Conservatives are not taking responsibility for that fiasco. We also saw it with the Minister of Agriculture with regard to the meat poisoning that happened in Alberta. The government has failed to take responsibility and has failed to account for those serious flaws.

Clearly, the Conservative government's objective is to introduce measures that would contribute to a less transparent and more arbitrary approach to immigration.

As a responsible opposition, we have attempted to restore some vital checks and balances to this bill. We New Democrats have asked the government to work with us. We asked Conservative members at committee stage. In that effort we introduced a number of amendments to work across party lines to make the system better, to deal with violent offenders. However, the Conservatives would not entertain any of the amendments that were offered to them. This has happened not only with respect to this bill but with other bills that have been introduced. The Conservatives continually fail to look at some amendments.

Surely, of the thousands of amendments we have introduced at committee stage and report stage some of them would make sense. The government has failed to take a reasonable approach to our immigration system and other measures that have been put forward in this House. The amendments that were introduced were all rejected in favour of an irresponsible approach with no checks and balances and no accountability.

This is a bill that does not help our communities, nor does it respect our judicial process. Instead, it removes any discretion for a judge to consider the nature of the crime and the context in which it was committed. This includes any potential mental illness of refugees from war-torn countries. One can imagine coming from a war-torn country. Clearly, this bill does not address that.

Safe communities have long been a priority in my constituency of Surrey North and across the country. The objectives in the preamble of this bill make sense. Members can all agree that non-citizens who commit serious crimes should be dealt with quickly. For those reasons the NDP supported the bill at second reading in the hope that the Conservative government would be reasonable and would look at some of the amendments we had to offer to look at ways to improve the system. Yet again, like all the other bills that have come through the House, it has failed to entertain any one of those amendments. Once again we see the Conservatives pushing through their agenda at the expense of new and existing Canadians. This has been pointed out. The so-called foreign criminals, while there are 1.5 million permanent residents, is how these individuals are classified.

It is difficult to understand why the government is paying lip-service to the problem of non-citizen criminals and not addressing the important issue of shortage of resources. It is continuing to make cuts to the Canada Border Services Agency, Correctional Service Canada and the RCMP. Basically, while the minister is given more power, those on the front lines are once again being asked to do more with less. Members saw the report from the PBO's office yesterday where more services, front line workers and officers are being cut than at the back end. Clearly, the priorities of the government are not aligned with what needs to be done.

When I talk about priorities, there are constituents of mine who have come into my office wanting to be reunited with their parents and loved ones. They are having to wait six to eight years. Members have seen the long lineups and wait lists in a number of categories. The government has failed to address the wait lists for reuniting families.

I am an immigrant. I came to this country 33 years ago. It was through family reunification that I was able to come to this wonderful country. Now the same system is in place but the wait time is eight years to reunite with loved ones. That is not acceptable.

We believe we can prevent non-citizens who commit serious crimes from abusing our appeals process. We also believe this can be achieved without undermining their rights. Once again, the Conservatives plan to do exactly what they want to do with no regard for the people of this country or the democratic processes by which it should be governed. There is the rule of law.

Members all know what Conservatives do when they do not like rules. They break them or they undermine Parliament to change them. This is exactly what is happening with Bill C-43. We have seen this with Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, and the omnibus crime bill. If they do not like the rules, they will change them in such a way to drive the Conservative agenda.

In summary, we agree that non-citizens who commit serious crimes in Canada should be dealt with quickly. However, we cannot ignore the fact that this bill would concentrate more arbitrary power in the hands of a minister without the appropriate checks and balances.

My sincere hope is that the Conservatives will take a step back and think about the consequences of painting law-abiding newcomers who arrive in Canada each year with the same tainted brush.

We know that the method by which we go about removing foreign criminals from Canadian soil is flawed. We know it needs to be fixed. Bill C-43 fails to do this and hurts both Canadians and newcomers.

Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as this is my first time rising in the House in 2013, I would like to take a minute to wish my constituents a happy and prosperous New Year.

I am glad to speak to Bill C-48 today, a bill that has been a long time coming. I hope it will not be another decade before we undergo this exercise again.

As we have heard, this is a huge bill. It addresses the changes to the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act and related legislation. It is almost a thousand pages.

What sets this large piece of legislation apart from the omnibus budget implementation acts that we debated last year is that it makes changes to a few closely related pieces of legislation. Therefore, I am perplexed as to why the government did not just throw it all in with the other stuff.

As we heard today, these changes are mostly old news and have been in practice for a number of years. That said, the bill is needed, as it has been more than 10 years since we have updated tax code legislation.

It is not that there have not been changes. The bill will include hundreds of tax measures that are already in place and have been enacted by comfort letters. In that respect, a lot of Bill C-48 amounts to technical housekeeping.

As the House is aware, the New Democrats are supporting the bill, but that does not amount to the acceptance of the government's direction on taxation or the belief that this entire process should not be improved. Certainly, the long period between updates to the tax code lead us to the situation that we have now where the legislation becomes so large. If we were to go through this process a little more regularly, we could avoid the scenario where MPs are forced to vote on bills that defy thorough study.

Tax lawyer Thomas McDonnell stated as much in a blog that touches on Bill C-48 as he discussed the legislative process with respect to taxation in both the United States and Canada. He wrote:

This Bill will also be passed without much in the way of informed debate in the House. Most parliamentarians voting on it will admit that they have not read it, let alone tried to fully understand the consequences of voting for (or against) it. This is not how Parliament is supposed to deal with one of its essential functions–the raising of revenue.

With that in mind it seems fairly straightforward to suggest that the government would do well to set a more regular schedule for this type of legislation going forward. I cannot imagine that such a move would be anything but positive, especially for those people whose business it is to work with the tax code.

We know there is broad support to do the work set out in the bill to get these measures into the tax code proper. The Auditor General has told us that it is long overdue. She told Parliament in 2009 that there were at least 400 outstanding technical amendments that had not yet been put into legislation. Over 200 of those outstanding changes are addressed in Bill C-48. While the Auditor General acknowledged that most tax practitioners were relatively happy with the comfort letter process, she noted the need to enact the legislative changes the comfort letters identified. Why it took four years to act on that advice is a question the government will have to answer. With the support it is receiving for Bill C-48 today, it is obvious that this could have been done some time ago.

When we are speaking about taxes, especially in the technical manner that we are today, most Canadians will not be sitting on the edge of their seats. This is not a bill that is likely to be newsworthy, since most of it is old news. What the bill does a lot of is to bring existing measures into the tax code that are designed to curb tax avoidance, which is actually good news for the vast majority of Canadians.

While the political discourse on taxation is often stuck in one gear, namely how to cut taxes, what is usually lost in the debate is the role that taxes play. Despite the universal desire to pay less, most people recognize the necessity of taxes. They allow us to operate as a country and can help us do a lot of good. Let us not forget about all the infrastructure dollars that go into our communities; they come from part of our taxes.

It is also a simple fact that countries require revenue and that revenue largely comes from taxation. What people absolutely want to see is a tax system that is fair, a system that guards against tax avoidance and a system that does not reward those people who are in a position to hide their money from their country. People do not want to feel that they are paying to subsidize others who have managed to use loopholes to minimize their contribution. That will not sit well with hard-working Canadians, and it should not sit well with parliamentarians either.

New Democrats understand this. We believe in cracking down on both tax avoidance and tax evasion, while ensuring the integrity of our tax system. We support the changes being proposed in the bill, especially those that aim to reduce tax avoidance.

The work being proposed in Bill C-48 is long overdue. Among the beneficiaries of the bill will be small businesses. These are the cornerstone of our communities, and it is important for us to do everything we can to create an environment that would make it easier to do business. These business people have enough to worry about without having to consider things like comfort letters. In that respect, what we are debating here is good. We would be streamlining the workload that businesses will have to comply with. Based on what I hear from businesses in my constituency of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, that would be a good and welcome thing.

As we have heard today, it would be impossible for any one of us to give a detailed account of such a large bill in the limited time we have to speak to the bill, so I will touch on one last item that I believe is timely.

What I am talking about is part 7 of Bill C-48. Part 7 clarifies the minister's authority to amend schedules and annexes to tax administration agreements if doing so does not fundamentally change the terms of the agreement. It would also allow tax administration agreements for the first nations goods and services tax between the federal government and aboriginal governments to be administered through a provincial administration system if the province also administers the federal GST. If we think back to how that issue was bungled when the HST was rolled out in Ontario, it would certainly help us avoid a similar scenario in the future.

I am sure members remember the discussion on the HST in Ontario. When the HST was brought in, how it would affect first nations was an afterthought by the Conservative government. Only some eleventh-hour negotiating at the insistence of Ontario chiefs like Chief Shining Turtle of Whitefish River First Nation, who is also the chair of the United Chiefs and Councils of Mnidoo Mnising First Nations on Manitoulin Island and Anishinabek Nation Grand Council Chief Patrick Madahbee. They avoided a showdown over the issue. In the end the solution was there all along. The Conservative government and the Government of Ontario chose to ignore it until they had no choice.

It is fitting that the Idle No More national day of protest was held in front of Parliament today. This is a similar issue. Some of us, along with the leader of the NDP, took the opportunity to meet with these people who have travelled a long way to bring their message of dissatisfaction to Parliament. Much of the frustration they are expressing comes from exactly the type of oversight that was on display when the HST turned first nations' tax exempt status into an exercise in red tape. What was forgotten at that time was the constitutional obligation of the federal government to meaningfully consult and accommodate first nations in decisions that directly affect them. I would like members to think about that because it seems that people have forgotten those words. I will repeat them: meaningfully consulting, meaningfully accommodating first nations in decisions that directly affect them.

This has been a sticking point for the Conservative government and I hope it has now recognized that first nations are not going to merely roll over and accept top-down directives. Had the government consulted, it would have heard that messing with tax exempt status was a non-starter and it could have moved immediately to the solution. Had the government remembered about the HST fiasco, it would not have gone ahead with the type of legislation that it threw into Bill C-45.

I met with some young people from the Whitefish River first nation. They do not understand why the government is not respecting their treaty rights, the accords and other agreements that have been signed. They are beyond themselves when it comes to the fact that the government often does not respect doing meaningful consultation. They have a right to that. New Democrats are hopeful the government will now show signs of understanding this and will proceed accordingly.

In closing, I reiterate that although New Democrats are supporting this bill, it is by no means an endorsement of the government's tax policies which put too much of the burden on the little guy while allowing an increasingly freer ride for the top earners in this country. We remain unconvinced that such a model is the best way to create wealth or jobs, but that is not the goal of this legislation either.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish you and all my colleagues and everyone on the Hill a very happy new year. I am very happy to be back after a good few weeks in my community and my constituency of Scarborough--Rouge River.

I am happy to rise today to speak to Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act and related legislation. Let us be straight. Bill C-48 is massive legislation that contains numerous technical changes. It is close to 1,000 pages long. This is definitely an omnibus bill, yet another omnibus from the government.

However, it is in stark contrast to the Conservatives' Trojan horse budget bills they presented as Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, which made sweeping changes to everything from environmental protection and government accountability to immigration and employment insurance, everything but the kitchen sink or everything and the kitchen sink.

Bill C-48 at least makes technical changes to a few closely related pieces of legislation. That is the big difference. The changes in Bill C-48 are largely designed to ensure the integrity of the tax system and discourage tax avoidance. The New Democrats believe in cracking down on both tax avoidance and tax evasion, while ensuring the integrity of our tax system. We support the changes being made in this bill, especially those that aim to reduce tax avoidance.

Moreover, the majority of measures in Bill C-48 have been in practice for several years, since it is the standard practice for tax measures to take effect upon their proposal. Once they have been announced, people accept them as adopted. It is for these reasons that we are supporting the bill. However, as I will reiterate later, the government needs to be more diligent in legislating these technical changes in a more timely manner rather than once every decade or so to avoid these massive pieces of legislation.

Bill C-48 includes outstanding legislative proposals dating as far back as 1998. Consultations with tax specialists and lawyers have indicated that the measures in Bill C-48 are overwhelmingly positive and that the changes in the bill are necessary technical changes. We believe these changes will in total be revenue positive and they generally move toward discouraging tax avoidance. Given the size of the bill, it certainly covers a great deal and many of these changes make sense.

Bill C-48 deals with offshore investment fund property and non-resident trusts and includes proposals from budget 2010 and August 2010 that are aimed at taxing the worldwide income of Canadian residents. It also deals with the taxation of foreign affiliates of Canadian multinational corporations.

The proposed amendments also ensure that provisions that use certain private law concepts, for example real and personal property, joint and several liability, reflect both the common law and civil law in both linguistic versions. Industry feedback that we received since July 2010 is entirely in favour of these changes.

The bill also includes: anti-avoidance measures for specific leasing property; ensures income trusts and partnerships are subject to the same loss utilization restrictions between corporations; limits the use of foreign tax credit generators for international tax avoidance; clarifies rules on taxable Canadian property for non-residents and migrants; and it provides an information regime for tax avoidance. All avoidance transactions, for example, any transaction where the purpose is to get a tax benefit must now be reported, even if the transaction is not abusive. Additional reporting will be required in cases where the transaction raises red flags for abuse of course.

The proposed bill clarifies the minister's authority to amend schedules and annexes to tax administration agreements if doing so does not fundamentally change the terms of the agreement which is already the practice.

The proposed bill also now allows tax administration agreements for the first nations goods and services tax between the federal government and aboriginal governments to be administered through a provincial administration system if the province also administers the federal GST. This will have the effect of simplifying the administration of the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act.

However, these are all good things but I do have a few concerns that I would like to point out.

First and foremost is the timeliness and predictability. Given the complexities of this bill and its vast and massive scale, we believe the government needs to be more diligent and responsible when handling tax code. This bill seems way overdue. The government must ensure that tax proposals are legislated on a regular basis as failure to do so can create uncertainty in the business community, as well as among tax practitioners.

The chair of the tax and fiscal policy advisory group, in a prebudget consultation meeting on October 15, argued that implementing a sunset provision would ensure that tax amendments would be legislated and eliminate the growing backlog of unlegislated tax measures.

He stated that a sunset provision:

—would bring greater clarity and certainty to tax legislation, reduce the compliance and paperwork burden, and, perhaps most importantly, prevent any future legislative backlogs.

He also added that these:

—steps that would go some distance in improving and strengthening Canada's tax system. Canada needs a 21st century tax system that is simple, fair, efficient, and transparent with low, internationally competitive tax rates.

We agree. Efficiency, transparency and predictability in our tax code are important for Canadian businesses, fiscal planning and a healthy economy.

The Auditor General also agrees, and raised concerns a few years ago about the slow pace of the government in legislating these technical changes found in the Department of Finance comfort letters.

In 2009 it was raised at that time that there were at least 400 outstanding technical amendments that had not yet been put into legislation. Now, going on four years later, 200 of these outstanding amendments are finally being addressed in Bill C-48.

In the 2009 fall report, the Auditor General wrote:

No income tax technical bill has been passed since 2001. Although the government has said that an annual technical bill of routine housekeeping amendments to the Act is desirable, this has not happened. As a result, the Department of Finance Canada has a backlog of at least 400 technical amendments that have not been enacted, including 250 “comfort letters” dating back to 1998, recommending changes that have not been legislated.

While Bill C-48 aims to deal with more than 200 of these changes, it still leaves a good deal remaining. One has to wonder how long we, the business community and tax practitioners, will have to wait for the next update.

The second concern is with respect to transparency. Certainly the size of this bill, close to 1,000 pages, and the long lapse of time between Bill C-48 and the last technical tax bill indicate that this process clearly still needs improvement.

The government must work harder to ensure the integrity of our tax system. The size of this bill also says something about the government's concern for transparency. I hope this bill of approximately 1,000 pages receives thorough scrutiny by parliamentarians and full debate in the House and proper examination and consideration at all stages.

The large nature of the bill due to the infrequency of technical income tax bills has negative impacts on the business community and certainly makes it difficult for proper evaluation by Parliament.

As the Auditor General wrote:

If proposed technical changes are not tabled regularly, the volume of amendments becomes difficult for taxpayers, tax practitioners, and parliamentarians to absorb when they are grouped into a large package.

We need to do better and ensure that we are doing the necessary due diligence when we are responsible for the affairs of Canadians.

Finally, the third concern is compliance. While the measures in the bill are much needed and important, we also need to focus on compliance. While the vast majority of these measures in Bill C-48 have already been in practice for several years, as it is standard practice for tax measures to take effect upon their proposal, the aspects that have not yet taken effect typically involve direct reporting or compliance.

Compliance is extremely important to ensure the integrity of our tax system, as well as the need to close unexpected loopholes in a timely manner. While we agree that these changes are necessary, I wonder what efforts the government is going to take to ensure that people are complying with the ongoing technical changes?

Finally, ensuring the integrity of our tax system is essential. The last technical bill was passed in 2001 and the long lapse of time between Bill C-48 and the last technical bill indicates that this process still needs improvement.

The responsible management of tax code means that changes must be made on a regular and ongoing basis so those impacted are not left in a state of uncertainty. The Conservatives must ensure to further improve the process for getting these technical changes into legislation on a regular basis to create greater certainty, predictability and transparency in our tax system.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we saw this last year with Bill C-38 and Bill C-45. The government brought in these large bills without any consultation with communities and rammed them through the House. Now we have another omnibus bill which deals with similar acts. I have to give that to the Conservatives. This legislation does not deal with hundreds of acts like Bill C-38 or Bill C-45 changed, but it would change a number of acts.

The Auditor General has asked for technical changes on a yearly basis so businesses can get to know them on a regular basis. Certainty would be provided to businesses, accountants and Canadians so they could deal with these on an ongoing basis. The Conservatives have basically waited 11 years to bring in this bill, 7 and a half years of their government and 6 and a half of another. We are happy with that, but the issue still remains. They have only dealt with half of the technical amendments that need to be changed and businesses need certainty. The Conservatives are clearly not providing that.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River.

Before I begin I want to wish everyone a happy new year. Members are back from their constituencies after a break over the holidays. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, I have talked to hundreds of my constituents. The priorities of the current government are not the priorities of the people of north Surrey.

People are very concerned about a number of bills that were introduced last year. Clearly Bill C-38 and Bill C-45 are not the priorities of my constituents from Surrey North. They are concerned about the degradation of our environment and the service cuts being put in place. Those are some of the things I heard. I am hoping that the government will go in the direction that Canadians want. Canadians' priorities are about getting jobs and providing services to Canadians. Clearly the government has not done that.

It is an honour to rise today on behalf of my constituents from Surrey North to speak to Bill C-48, which is an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act and related legislation.

Bill C-48 is a massive, monster bill, with over 1,000 pages to it. Members have seen this before from the government. We have seen legislation, two omnibus bills introduced by the government in the last year. We had Bill C-38 and Bill C-45.

Members all know what was in those bills. Those bills dealt with hundreds of different laws. They amended different acts that made no sense whatsoever. Those bills should have been split into various different areas, which we then could have debated in the House. The Conservatives rammed them through without the proper oversight of Parliament and the parliamentary committees. We have seen that the Conservatives did not even listen to one amendment. There were thousands of amendments introduced in committee and in the House, but the Conservatives failed to take any of those amendments into consideration. They rammed those bills through and we are seeing the consequences of ramming those bills through the House.

This morning members saw a protest outside the House, when the Idle No More demonstrations took place. In fact, they took place across this country. One of their concerns is the government's lack of consultation with first nations. It is not only with first nations. The government failed to consult Canadians on legislation it was bringing in. It failed to consult the very people who should have been consulted, the very people whom Bill C-38 and Bill C-45 were going to impact.

Again, Bill C-48 is a large omnibus bill, but there is one difference from Bill C-38 and Bill C-45. The bill actually relates to income tax issues, but to put this together in a large bill is still an issue for the opposition. Basically a huge bill creates a huge burden for those trying to understand what is included and what is not included in the bill.

On top of that, members have not seen this sort of bill for the last 11 years. We heard from the Auditor General, through one of her recommendations, about the impact that doing this legislation every 11 years could have on our economy, on the services we deliver and on tax evasion and those sorts of things, which we are trying to prevent.

I am going to look at the concern that the Auditor General raised previously about the slow pace of government in legislating the technical changes found in the Department of Finance comfort letters. Certainly the size of the bill, which again is close to 1,000 pages, and the long lapse of time between Bill C-48 and the last technical tax bill indicate that this process still needs improvement.

It took 11 years to move on some of these technical income tax issues. We need to address this on a yearly basis so we can close the loopholes that people and corporations are taking advantage of. We should not be waiting 11 years to update our tax code and legislation and to crack down on tax avoidance and tax evasion. New Democrats believe in cracking down on tax evaders and tax avoiders while ensuring the integrity of our tax system. We support the changes being made in the bill, especially those aimed at reducing tax avoidance.

The bill is so massive that trying to decipher it, to look at what is included and what is not, is difficult. In fact there are 400 recommendations that were offered by the Auditor General. However, only about 200 are covered in the bill. Therefore, not only is this a slow pace but the government has still not addressed some of the loopholes that have been pointed out by the Auditor General.

This is a good bill. We should not be waiting 11 years to bring it forward to address some of the concerns that have been pointed out by not only the Auditor General but other Canadians and organizations that deal with tax evasion and tax issues on a daily basis. The CGA is one of the associations that has strongly criticized the government about the need to have the code updated on a regular, yearly basis so that it is up to date and our businesses have clarity as to what needs to be changed and what they are dealing with from the government side.

There are many parts to the bill. I am not going to go through all of them because I know I do not have a lot of time. Part 1 of the bill deals with the offshore investment fund property and non-resident trust and includes proposals from budget 2010. Also, some of the changes in Bill C-48 are largely designed to ensure the integrity of tax system remains in place and to discourage avoidance. They incorporate feedback on proposals previously in Bill C-10.

Part 2 deals with the taxation of foreign affiliates of Canadian multinationals. Some of these changes reflect proposals from way back in 2007 and 2006. It deals with a number of different areas, but the fact is that the government is failing to update our tax code so we can catch those avoiders and can provide certainty to businesses.

Auditor General Sheila Fraser's 2009 fall report states:

No income tax technical bill has been passed since 2001. Although the government has said that an annual technical bill of routine housekeeping amendments to the Act is desirable, this has not happened. As a result, the Department of Finance Canada has a backlog of at least 400 technical amendments that have not been enacted, including 250 “comfort letters” dating back to 1998, recommending changes that have not been legislated.

The Conservatives are failing to update some of the changes that are required. They are slow. Their priorities are not right. The priorities of Canadians are not the priorities of the government. We saw that with Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, where the government brought in omnibus bills and rammed them through the House without even consulting the very people they would impact.

In its pre-budget submission in 2012, the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada stated:

CGA-Canada strongly believes that the key to sustained economic recovery and enhanced economic growth lies in the government’s commitment to tax reform and red tape reduction. Therefore, CGA-Canada makes the following two key recommendations: 1. Modernize Canada’s tax system--make it simple, transparent and more efficient • Introduce and pass a technical tax bill to deal with unlegislated tax proposals • Implement a “sunset provision” to prevent future legislative backlogs....

I want to summarize this. The Conservatives have been slow to get these technical changes legislated and they go as far back as 1998. Bill C-48 aims to deal with more than 200 of these changes, but there is still a large number of technical codes that need to be changed. The Conservatives have failed in that sense.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that question.

I am going to draw on my experience. Over the holidays—they were supposed to be holidays, but that was not the case—I was asked to develop a course on the amendments to the Indian Act and on bills C-27, C-38 and C-45.

For Bill C-27, I addressed certain concepts related to accountability, sharing and public disclosure of financial information on economic transactions and the financial information of private on-reserve businesses. The imposition of those measures is a first in Canada. It is likely that they will be fast-tracked and ultimately adopted. Well, with Bill C-27, it will be a first. Private and corporate entities will have to make their financial information available to the general public on the band councils' websites for a minimum of 10 years.

Once again, it is likely that there will be cherry-picking, that these measures will be imposed on certain communities and that the government in power will be quite accommodating and hands-off with other communities that support it more. I submit to you that there is a willingness to keep the communities at a certain level.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. colleague from Saint-Lambert for her excellent comment. Indeed, if there had been a time frame, we might not have had to deal with a doorstop of some 1,000 pages. It is almost impossible for the Standing Committee on Finance to consider all the changes in a reasonable and careful manner.

All members of this House were elected to work carefully and thoroughly. It is very important that we be given the tools to do so. When omnibus bills with hundreds of pages are introduced, like Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, we are prevented from doing our job. Yet it is very important that this work be done carefully.

I wish to thank my hon. colleague for pointing out that work to prevent tax evasion has unfortunately not been done on the other side. This is just one small step. It is not a serious one. We have to work much harder and make choices in order to carry out a tax reform that reflects our priorities. Instead of making old age security at age 67 a priority we should be focused on increasing the guaranteed income supplement, and on the environment, in order to offer a better tomorrow for future generations.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act and related legislation.

First of all, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Manicouagan.

As I mentioned earlier and as many of my colleagues in the House of Commons have said today, this bill is very big. The bill is huge, and with nearly 1,000 pages, it is the size of a very thick brick. It is a bill that dates from 2001 and to which no amendments of this scale have been made.

This bill is so big because previous governments had been dragging their feet, because they did not do their job and because they took too long to bring the bill to the table. Because they did not do their job properly, today we are faced with a huge bill, a bill that we might call an omnibus bill.

However, this bill does not compare to the horrible omnibus bills C-38 and C-45, which covered a range of different items such as the environment, the economy and old age security. Those were really bad bills. It was with good reason that they were called “Trojan horses”. Those omnibus bills were horrible, “monster” bills.

This omnibus bill is acceptable as it deals only with income tax legislation. However, the problem is that the bill is so huge that it is practically impossible to study it carefully within the timeframe we have been given. The Conservative government must be much more attentive and efficient in bringing forward their bills on a more regular basis, which would allow us to have time to study the amendments to these bills.

In this regard, Auditor General Sheila Fraser stated in the report she tabled in the fall of 2009:

No income tax technical bill has been passed since 2001. Although the government has said that an annual technical bill of routine housekeeping amendments to the Act is desirable, this has not happened. As a result, the Department of Finance Canada has a backlog of at least 400 technical amendments that have not been enacted, including 250 “comfort letters” dating back to 1998, recommending changes that have not been legislated.

This has been dragging on since 1998.

If proposed technical changes are not tabled regularly, the volume of amendments becomes difficult for taxpayers, tax practitioners, and parliamentarians to absorb when they are grouped into a large package.

As I mentioned, that is what happened. The Conservatives have wasted time since coming to power, and now we have a hefty, 1,000-page omnibus bill. Of course I am neither an expert or a tax practitioner. However, as parliamentarians, it is important that we study bills with as much rigour as possible and within a reasonable amount of time. Unfortunately, we will not have the opportunity to do so with this bill.

Another point I would like to address is tax avoidance. Bill C-48 is a first step towards fighting tax evasion. However, the Conservative government is talking out of both sides of its mouth. On the one hand, it is taking a small step to prevent tax avoidance; on the other hand, it is signing bilateral agreements with countries that flaunt basic tax rules and are even tax havens. This government is not taking this seriously.

A number of my NDP colleagues sit on the finance committee. They heard some very interesting things from Brigitte Alepin, a very well-known tax expert. She has written two books that are reference works for anyone interested in fighting tax evasion and tax havens.

The first book is called Ces riches qui ne paient pas d'impôt. I recommend that all members of the House read it, particularly the Conservatives, since the work on tax evasion in Bill C-48 was not done properly. This excellent book, which was published in 2003, describes all the pernicious ways people use on a regular basis to avoid paying taxes, whether it be by deferring their taxes for ever or by inventing a rather questionable foundation.There are bona fide foundations but others can be very questionable. Clearly, there are also all sorts of subsidies.

I am going to talk about various issues but these are the choices that have to be made with a bill such as Bill C-48. The environment is very important and, right now, the government is shamelessly providing billions of dollars in subsidies to the oil and gas industries. They are even providing coal subsidies. I am not talking about tax evasion here but about subsidies that make the tax roll unfair and inequitable.

Ms. Alepin describes the three basic principles that are very important to a sound taxation system: the system must be simple, effective and fair. That is very important. However, right now, the Conservatives do not have a simple, effective and fair tax system, far from it. I mentioned a few aspects. I would like to read a short summary of Ms. Alepin's latest book, La crise fiscale qui vient, which is very interesting. If my colleagues have not read this wonderful book, I recommend that they all do so, particularly my Conservative colleagues since they did not do their work on the fight against tax evasion properly. This is what the book summary says:

The author identifies the signs of the impending fiscal crisis, which has already begun in most western economies. She provides a simple and enlightening description of the new conditions that exacerbate this crisis: the increased number of charitable foundations [I spoke about this earlier], the development of electronic commerce, the increasing use of tax havens [I also spoke about this], the competition between states to attract large corporations, etc. Although current governments seem to have given up on dealing with this crisis [and the Conservative government is a good example], Brigitte Alepin shows that there are solutions to this problem. She also shows how tax measures can help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, among other things.

That is why I referred just now to tax measures and environmental measures. My colleagues also said that we could promote tax measures to favour, say, renovations. We had the ecoENERGY Retrofit--Homes program for energy efficient houses. Such programs are very good from the tax point of view. They are straightforward and keep the economy moving. It is the same thing here. When we have a government that stands up and earnestly tries to prevent tax evasion, and wants to invest in good things that benefit our economy and our planet and are good for our children and for future generations, we can make fairer and more enlightened choices.

To sum up, Brigitte Alepin is truly a tax expert. She has written other books, like Ces riches qui ne paient pas d'impôt about rich people who pay no taxes. The summary I have just read you is taken from La crise fiscale qui vient, about the looming fiscal crisis. I advise everyone to read these books, and of course to invite Ms. Alepin once again before the Standing Committee on Finance, because she has a lot of useful things to say.

In closing, it is very important when embarking on such reforms to do so quickly, so that there is not too much work to be done, so that it is not impossible to do it, and above all, to make enlightened choices that will be the right ones for future generations.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will indeed be very brief. I would first of all like to congratulate my colleague on her excellent speech.

I would like to ask her a question about some concerns already raised by the Auditor General with regard to the slow pace at which the government enacted technical changes.

As mentioned earlier, this bill is nearly 1,000 pages long. It is huge. It could be called an omnibus bill, even though it is very different from Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, which were terrible, horrible omnibus bills because they tackled a range of issues. This bill is quite technical.

What does the member think of the Auditor General’s advice that the government should move faster in order to avoid ending up with a bill so huge it is impossible to adequately address all the issues? The government should be more efficient.

Aboriginal Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP has proposed an emergency debate on the breakdown of first nations and Crown relationships as evidenced by the continuing peaceful protests across the country. In fact, today on Parliament Hill, Idle No More has gathered to continue to raise these issues.

In particular, concerns are being raised that omnibus bills, Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, which affect inherent aboriginal rights, were passed into law without the constitutionally required consultation and accommodation. Now the Mikisew Cree First Nation and the Frog Lake First Nation have filed a notice of application for a judicial review on the conduct of the responsible ministers in developing environmental policies and the proposed implementation of those policies through the omnibus statutes, Bill C-38 and Bill C-45.

This is the first time since nationwide rallies began on December 10 that the House has had the opportunity to consider this matter. In that time, the rallies have grown, both in size and in the number of their locations across the country. International attention has been brought to these matters, with support for the protests from six continents. The continued disregard for the concerns being expressed at the grassroots level puts at risk Canada's economic security and the constitutional rights of its citizens.

Therefore, the NDP is requesting this emergency debate and I thank the Speaker for his careful consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives and the Conservatives alone are responsible for the protests being organized by the Idle No More movement.

When the Conservatives imposed omnibus bills C-38 and C-45 without any consultation, they showed their arrogance towards all Canadians who support the aboriginal cause. The path to reconciliation begins with respecting the nation-to-nation relationship.

Will the Conservatives acknowledge what is happening outside or will they continue to pass legislation that does not respect treaties or the basic rights of aboriginal people?

Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012

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

Mr. Speaker, today we are discussing Bill C-48. As you can see, it is rather thick. It is more than 950 pages long.

As my colleague from Parkdale—High Park mentioned, we will support this bill because it eliminates a number of tax loopholes and resolves several problems. Decisions about these issues have been made over time by agencies such as the Canada Revenue Agency, so this bill is needed. However, as I have mentioned in other speeches, this bill will amend the Income Tax Act as well as other acts: the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act and other related legislation. It will make an already complicated system even more complicated.

I will give some background on this bill. In October 2012, we received a notice of ways and means from the Minister of Finance, which was more than 950 pages long and consolidated almost all of the outstanding tax measures. These measures date back to 2002 and even earlier. More than 400 decisions have been made by different agencies, including the Canada Revenue Agency, which receives inquiries from businesses and tax advisors asking whether they can interpret a specific condition in the Income Tax Act in a particular way. The Agency then sees that this was not foreseen by the legislator and proposes an amendment.

Over time, the Canada Revenue Agency has collected its interpretations of more than 400 issues. Now, over 10 years after the last tax bill was passed, we are discussing another bill.

Obviously, the department drafted this bill after consulting the private sector. The Standing Committee on Finance, on which I sit, has heard from private sector representatives. They spoke about several tax issues, including the technical issues we are discussing, as well as the complexity of the current legislation. I will get back to this a little later in my speech.

The impressive Bill C-48 has been before us since November 21, 2012. I doubt that more than a dozen of the 308 members of Parliament will read the whole thing before they have to vote on it. This is understandable, because these are of course extremely technical issues. It really is a shame, though, because it undermines our role as MPs, as representatives of our constituents. We cannot realistically vote with a full knowledge of all the elements in the bill. They just throw this at us in Parliament, at first reading. Yes, we will discuss it at Standing Committee on Finance meetings. It will eventually be passed at second and at third reading. However, for a matter as important as taxation, the Conservatives are being pretty casual by tabling this bill in the House of Commons and asking us to pass all of its recommendations, which will probably not be studied very carefully by the House. It is not that we are unwilling to do study the bill, but it will be really difficult to understand the scope of the measures being put forward because they are so complex and so highly technical. The Standing Committee on Finance will do the best it can, but still, the way the bill was introduced is a real concern.

Bill C-48 is an omnibus bill. We agree on this. However, unlike Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, otherwise known as mammoth bills or monster bills, this is a real omnibus bill. Bill C-38 and Bill C-45 contained a patchwork of measures and legislation. In those two bills, which are now law, more than 130 items were added, deleted or amended in two votes. Bill C-48 has a single basic principle that aims at amending the tax system consistently and making it fairer.

I would just like to quickly go back to the definition of an omnibus bill to confirm what I am saying. According to the Library of Parliament, an omnibus bill per se is a bill that, while it aims at creating or amending several different acts, has “one basic principle or purpose which ties together all the proposed enactments and thereby renders the Bill intelligible for parliamentary purposes”.

Bill C-48 is an omnibus bill. Bill C-38 and Bill C-45 were not really omnibus bills.

As I mentioned earlier, this bill is nearly 1,000 pages long. It updates the rules relating to many different tax measures that are still outstanding and brings them into harmony with the current system.

Regarding the tax changes, the implementation of the measures in this bill is unique. We have a majority government, and the rules in the bill will be adopted. As my colleague, the official opposition's finance critic, said in her speech, we are going to support this bill at second reading. In fact, the rules are practically in effect already, according to the International Financial Reporting Standards, as they have been ever since first reading when the bill was tabled on November 21, 2012.

They are also valid and in force according to the Canadian accounting standards for private businesses. Since November 21, our businesses have had a little more security and stability under Canadian and international standards, something that will be welcomed by these firms. The Standing Committee on Finance has heard this on a number of occasions.

For a number of years, in fact, there has been an effort to achieve some harmonization of accounting standards and tax rules at the international level. This is another set of issues that the government should at least look into. The reason is very simple: we see it as a way of facilitating the containment of tax evasion. Thanks to my colleague from Brossard—La Prairie, this is something that the Standing Committee on Finance will be addressing.

We are also facilitating trade and investment in a world that is increasingly integrated in economic terms, but in which standards still differ from country to country. Tax evasion is a major problem. It exists because of loopholes in the Income Tax Act and other tax legislation, including legislation on corporations.

With consistent rules and cohesive tax regulations, we can help companies to be much more competitive and to know what to expect. Regulatory predictability is a key factor in minimizing the risks our industries face. The OECD, in particular, has demonstrated leadership in arranging the coordination of rules internationally.

In Canada, it is the Accounting Standards Board that has handled the incorporation of international rules into the Canadian legal system and Canadian standards. According to the Canada Revenue Agency, the rules in this bill are currently in force for publicly accountable enterprises.

With the tabling of this bill today, we have an opportunity to discuss issues relating to Canada’s tax structure, given that action is already being taken by the various accounting bodies. Needless to say, most of the changes in Bill C-48 are in fact not only familiar to the main parties concerned, but more importantly, are already being applied in their operations. Hence, there should be no great surprises in the debate, or in the eventual passage of this bill.

There are no special innovations in Bill C-48, apart from two minor technical amendments that are included in the bill.

As I noted in my earlier questions to the parliamentary secretary and our official opposition finance critic, the Income Tax Act currently runs to 3,000 pages. The original act passed in 1917 had 10 or so pages. Now, it has 3,000. A bill like this one will add many more, in order once again to eliminate specific tax loopholes.

As the system grows in complexity, however, there are more and more opportunities to find loopholes in the legislation that companies and individuals, who in many cases have the resources to work with tax consultants, can use to try to introduce personal arrangements that will ultimately reduce the fairness of our tax system.

A well-known Quebec tax specialist, Brigitte Alepin, who testified last year before the Standing Committee on Finance, has written a book explaining that Canada’s tax system is headed for a brick wall and that the government should do something before it is too late. In her book, she explains that in order to be sustainable, taxation systems should generally follow three major principles: they should be simple, effective and equitable.

The Canadian system, unfortunately, is trying to distance itself to a dangerous degree from those principles, hence the urgency of reviewing the foundation on which it is built.

In her book, Ms. Alepin also points out that an ideal tax system should be cost-neutral; in other words, it should not be too expensive to administer.

She refers to a study conducted by the Fraser Institute, which I do not often quote here in the House. It is worth mentioning here today, however. The 2007 study evaluated the cost of administering the Canadian tax system.

In 2007, the Fraser Institute estimated the cost of the system to be between $19 billion and $31 billion, that is, about $950 per Canadian. Thus, the cost of administering the system is incredible. It is a huge and complex system, but we should not have to pay nearly $1,000 a year for every Canadian in order to administer it.

We need to debate the complexity of the tax system. Indeed, Bill C-48 allows us to do just that. We need to have this debate because the issue of simplifying the system, much like the issue of simplifying the Canadian justice system, is important for every Canadian, including the people we represent here in the House.

I would remind the House that the Supreme Court of Canada stated that tax laws should be certain, predictable and fair so that taxpayers can order their affairs intelligently. It also described some consequences of complex tax laws, and these were reiterated in 2009 in the Auditor General's fall report. She stated:

Taxpayers’ ability to comply with tax legislation depends on their understanding of how the rules apply to their own circumstances. When the intent of the legislation is not clearly conveyed by the words, taxpayers may find it difficult to assess the income taxes they owe and this could foster tax avoidance. Uncertainty about how the law should be applied can also add to the time taken and costs incurred by tax audits and tax administration.

This issue is so fundamental and so important that it was one of the central topics of all the recent prebudget consultations that the finance committee was pleased to have the opportunity to hold regarding previous budgets. During the consultations, several witnesses talked about the problems and difficulties that Canada will encounter if we do not begin to recognize the situation we are in and do something about it.

One of the people I would like to quote is Denis Saint-Pierre, chair of the Tax and Fiscal Policy Advisory Group of the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada. The Government of Canada quoted this organization to support what it was saying about the benefits of Bill C-38, but the organization said something else that the government failed to mention. Mr. Saint-Pierre said that, when the Standing Committee on Finance invited Canadians to share their priorities for the 2013 federal budget, the committee asked him five questions to which he could provide only one answer again this year and that is that the simplification of the tax system is vital. He said:

Canada's tax system is unduly complex. Entrepreneurs will tell you that. My clients tell me that. There is a growing consensus that the complexity of Canada's tax system must be addressed if Canada is to remain competitive, able to attract business and investment, and create jobs and economic growth.

For example, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce identifies Canada' s complex tax system as one of the top 10 barriers to competitiveness. Tax simplification is the number one public policy priority for CGA-Canada.

Robin Bobocel, vice-president of public affairs for the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce, said exactly the same thing:

One of the significant costs that business bears with such a complex tax code is compliance with it. There's a significant cost borne on simply filing tax returns and trying to ensure that you're taking full advantage of the tax code as it sits.

This was mentioned in the study conducted by the Fraser Institute. Quite frankly, Canada's global competitiveness will suffer the consequences if we do not conduct a comprehensive review of the tax code.

Here is one last quote from someone who testified before the Standing Committee on Finance on the very important issue of the complexity of the tax system. Michael Conway, chief executive and national president of Financial Executives International Canada, had this to say before the committee:

We again recommend that the Minister of Finance establish a task force to undertake a comprehensive review of the federal Income Tax Act, with the objective of reducing complexities, because—to be clear—compliance has become unmanageable, and the costs are killing everyone.

That act is too cumbersome for the government to administer and it creates an excessive burden on business, especially small business, which is one of the engines that drive our economy.

In its final report on the pre-budget consultations, the committee unanimously recommended that the federal government undertake a comprehensive review of the tax system and ensure its fairness as well as neutrality by continuing to close tax loopholes that allow select taxpayers to avoid paying their fair share of tax.

The tax system's complex and cumbersome nature, in addition to being costly for the taxpayers, undermines the concept of fairness that would allow taxpayers to see it as legitimate.

The Standing Committee on Finance has already done some work on this. For some people the tax system is an exciting issue, while for others it seems more technical. It affects one of the essential elements for Canadians, that is, to contribute fairly to this society and this country in which we live.

Since 2011, when we became the official opposition, and even since the current government took office in 2006, the government has shrugged off all taxation issues in a most disingenuous way. During debates, the government regularly mentions the phantom carbon tax the NDP wants to impose, although there is no such thing. Moreover, in all their speeches, the Conservatives say that the NDP wants to tax and spend, which is also not the case.

If we look at the records of all the NDP governments in the country—provincial ones, since we have not governed the whole country—we find that NDP governments have achieved more balanced budgets than the other parties that have governed the provinces, territories and the country since 1987, or even 1982, if we want to go back that far.

Now we need to debate tax policy like grown-ups. The NDP is ready to do that and the other opposition parties are probably ready as well. We must stop treating the taxation system as a purely political issue and listen to the voters who are stuck in a system so complex that they cannot tell the true facts from the illusions the government has created.

When people talk about the complexity of the taxation system, the tax brackets are not the problem. The tax brackets are very simple for the individuals or businesses filing their tax returns.

We must consider three key elements, two of which are easy to analyze.

First, there are loopholes. Bill C-48 is supposed to deal with this problem. We certainly hope that some of these loopholes can be eliminated.

Then there are tax expenditures, and especially boutique tax credits, that is, a choose-your-own list of tax credits for various parts of Canadian society. They include tax credits to assist volunteer firefighters and those for families that want their children to have more training in the arts or sports activities. These are non-refundable tax credits. The people who use them are paying taxes. Thus, the people who need them most are not able to use these tax credits.

Finally, there is a lack of concerted effort and coordination internationally. This has to be addressed at the most basic level. It is necessary for Parliament as a whole and every member of Parliament to participate in seeking more fairness and exploring ways our tax system can adapt to the new reality, because the Income Tax Act has been around since 1917, and making sure than Canada remains competitive.

Adding the complexity of Bill C-48 to the already complex Income Tax Act is not the way to resolve this fundamental issue that will soon have to be addressed.

We will support Bill C-48 at second reading.

We hope to have a good debate on it in the Standing Committee on Finance. I will be pleased to take questions from the hon. members.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to welcome all my colleagues back to the House. I trust they had an enjoyable break over the holiday period, and that they are all energized and looking forward to getting back to what I am sure will be a very busy winter and spring session.

Today I am pleased to rise on Bill C-48. The bill implements over a decade of highly technical changes to Canada's tax code.

The way I feel about it is that one of the most if not the most important work for us, as elected members of Parliament, is to make decisions about taxation and spending. It is about respecting how hard Canadians work to earn the money they get. We make decisions about taxing that money so we can provide for public services, public infrastructure and democratic machinery.

Most Canadians accept the principle of paying taxes as something that keeps a healthy society. However, they want us to have a very careful eye on their tax dollars and on how that money is spent. I think most Canadians want, and I fear they do not feel they get enough of, is transparency and integrity in our system of tax collection and spending and in our government. They want accountability. They want respect for every dollar they send here.

When we have a situation, for example, like the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who has to take the government to court to get information about how tax dollars are being spent or what cuts to services, which Canadians depend on, are being made, that decreases confidence in our system, in the accountability and transparency of government.

So too does the complicated nature of our tax legislation. Individuals who may not have English or French as their first language, or seniors or young people really struggle with the complicated nature of our tax legislation and certainly yearn for greater simplicity.

That brings me to this bill. Many of these changes seem like they make a lot of good sense. There are provisions in Bill C-48 to ensure that all of an airline corporation's taxable income will be attributed to the provinces and territories in which the corporation has a permanent establishment. There are provisions to discourage tax avoidance in the taxation of foreign affiliates of Canadian multinational corporations. There are anti-avoidance measures for specific leasing of property, limits on the use of foreign tax credit generators for international tax avoidance, as well as housekeeping changes to the Excise Tax Act such as repealing a provision that has not been in use since 1999.

We believe these changes in total will be revenue positive and that they generally move to discourage tax avoidance and therefore ensure the integrity of our existing tax law. Furthermore, the vast majority of these measures have already been in practice for several years, since it is standard practice for tax measures to take effect upon their proposal. Once they have been announced, people accept them as adopted. For these reasons the official opposition New Democrats will be supporting the bill.

Bill C-48 implements over a decade of highly technical changes to Canada's tax system.

In the end, we believe that these changes will be revenue positive. They generally move to discourage tax avoidance and ensure the integrity of the tax system.

The vast majority of these measures have been in place for several years, since it is standard practice for tax measures to take effect upon their proposal. For these reasons, the official opposition will be supporting this bill.

New Democrats believe in cracking down on tax avoidance and tax evasion, while ensuring the integrity of our tax system. That is why we have pushed, since the election in 2011, to have the finance committee complete its study of tax evasion. It looks like we will finally be doing that this year. However, that is why we support the changes being made in the bill, especially those that aim to reduce tax avoidance.

I do want to raise some concerns relating to the size of the bill, which comes to us at close to 1,000 pages.

First, the massive scale of the bill indicates that the government needs to be more responsible regarding its handling of the tax code. In particular, it must ensure that tax proposals are legislated on a regular basis. In fact, the last technical tax bill was passed in 2001. In her fall 2009 update, the former Auditor General, Sheila Fraser, raised concerns about the fact that there were at least 400 outstanding technical amendments to the tax code, which had not yet been put into legislation.

No technical income tax bill has been passed since 2001. Although the government has said that an annual technical bill of routine housekeeping amendments to the Act is desirable, this has not happened. As a result, the Department of Finance Canada has a backlog of at least 400 technical amendments that have not been enacted, including 250 “comfort letters” dating back to 1998, recommending changes that have not been legislated.

Over 200 of these outstanding changes are addressed in Bill C-48, but that still leaves hundreds of outstanding amendments.

I spoke recently in Calgary to a group of more than 1,000 tax practitioners, general accountants, certified general accountants and tax lawyers. They agreed that the comfort letter process works, but they wanted the clarity of having these laws fully in place. It would make their jobs so much easier and create greater clarity for Canadians. The Auditor General's 2009 fall report also expressed a need for these legislative changes so that the comfort letters identified could be enacted.

During this fall's pre-budget consultations, the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada told the finance committee:

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

These are the experts speaking, the tax practitioners who deal with this work every day of the week. The quote continues:

—we strongly feel that implementing a sunset provision would ensure that tax amendments are legislated, which ultimately will eliminate the ever-growing backlog of unlegislated tax measures once and for all. With this provision, if a tax policy change is announced and not incorporated into legislation within a reasonable amount of time, the measure would lapse. This would bring greater clarity and certainty to tax legislation, reduce the compliance and paperwork burden, and, perhaps most importantly, prevent any future legislative backlogs.

What they are asking for is a sunset clause so that if government announces tax changes in one year, by the end of that year, it would bring those changes into law. It makes perfect sense. We should not be waiting 11 years to get clarity on tax changes the government has already made. We strongly support this recommendation from the CGA.

The Income Tax Act is a living document, perhaps more so than any other piece of legislation. Feedback from the lived experience of taxpayers and tax practitioners can help us make amendments in order to ensure the integrity of our tax system. The responsible management of the tax code means that these changes must be made on an ongoing basis. Failing to do so can lead to uncertainty for business and for tax practitioners.

One thing I have heard, while going across this country and talking to businesses from the east to the west coast and in many places in between, is that they find the government takes too much action on an ad hoc basis for political reasons and does not create enough certainty by laying out a plan and following that plan.

Anything we can do to create greater certainty for business leads to a better investment climate. It helps businesses make decisions about investing in machinery and equipment and creating more jobs, because they have greater certainty of what the future will look like. Clear tax legislation helps do that. Failing to do so leads to uncertainty. That is why we need the government to act so we do not have decisions being made on an ad hoc basis. People and business want predictability and reliability in our tax system. Without these basic building blocks of predictability and reliability, businesses cannot do effective fiscal planning.

Canadian families need the same certainty. These ad hoc, boutique tax credits, which undermine our tax base and take revenue out of our tax system, are also unpredictable for Canadian families. Their introduction on an ad hoc basis means that it is difficult for families to plan ahead for their tax obligations.

As the former Auditor General noted:

If proposed technical changes are not tabled regularly, the volume of amendments becomes difficult for taxpayers, tax practitioners, and parliamentarians to absorb when they are grouped into a large package.

Amen. That is what we have today, a bill of about 1,000 pages. Bringing more than a decade of tax changes into one bill does not create a situation of the greatest transparency. Yet we need transparency and accountability for our tax legislation, which is something that touches all Canadians and all businesses. It has become a pattern in this Parliament to create these massive omnibus budget bills with hundreds of pages of legislation and very little time to examine them. Furthermore, only a fraction of MPs, similar to the Canadian public in general, are tax specialists.

With regard to Bill C-48, tax lawyer Thomas McDonnell said that we should also remember the huge so-called technical tax bill introduced last fall. The hard copy of the amendments and explanatory notes was over 900 pages. He believes that this bill will also be passed without an informed debate in the House of Commons, and most parliamentarians who vote on the bill will admit that they did not read it or really try to understand the impact of their vote no matter which way they vote. He added that this is not the way Parliament is supposed to carry out one of its main duties, which is to generate revenue. It is sad to say, but he believes that most parliamentarians do not understand this aspect of Parliament's role or they do not have the courage to stand up and defend this role.

While we do not support the government's serial use of omnibus legislation, we recognize that it makes a big difference that Bill C-48 makes technical changes to a smaller number of closely related laws. The vast majority of these measures have already been in practice for several years and have incorporated feedback from tax practitioners. This is a stark contrast to the Conservatives' Trojan Horse budget bills, Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, which made sweeping changes to everything from environmental protection and government accountability to immigration and EI, all without thorough consultation, debate or scrutiny.

That being said, the bill still poses a definite challenge for most parliamentarians, who will not have the opportunity to thoroughly study it and will not be able to study it at committee.

Transparency must be at the heart of our work as publicly elected representatives. We must do everything in our power to ensure that legislation receives full and informed debate in the House. I therefore urge my colleagues to ensure that the legislation receives thorough debate and consideration at all stages, but we also need to go further.

It is our responsibility as MPs to be continually examining how we can most effectively represent the interests of our constituents, including in the tax system. People lose confidence when they see the government's ineptitudes, such as the financing of the F-35 procurement program or individual expenses such as $16 orange juice.

However, in the tax system, when a dishonest few refuse to live up to their responsibilities not only do the rest of us pay more to make up for it, but those who do seek to live up to their responsibilities are put at a competitive disadvantage, and I am thinking of businesses here. This places enormous pressure on corporations and business owners. Too many businesses find themselves in a race to match the tax avoidance measures of their competitors. Yet public budgets provide so much of what Canadians value most. Basic government services are the foundation of our economy: infrastructure, police, education, our legal system.

In testimony to the Senate banking committee Marlene Legare, the former chief of the sales tax division in the Department of Finance's tax policy branch, explained:

Until now, the choice has probably been more in favour of combining measures so as to put forward fewer bills. I think the lesson that we learned from this experience is that it may be preferable to change the balance somewhat.

She is speaking of the omnibus bills. She continues:

That may mean putting forward smaller bills which would contain measures that would be enacted on a more timely basis.

That is, going forward, let us make the changes within a year after they are announced so that there is clarity for taxpayers and for tax practitioners, and so that we are fully recouping the tax dollars for changes that have been announced. It is inexcusable that it has taken so long for the sitting government to take action on these changes.

The official opposition stands firmly in support of focusing on compliance and creating clear tax structures in a timely manner to ensure the integrity of our tax system. That is why we are supporting Bill C-48. However, the massive size of the legislation demonstrates that there is still a huge amount of work to do in getting such technical changes legislated in a timely fashion. Failing to do so hurts taxpayers and tax practitioners and makes it difficult for a proper evaluation by Parliament.

The official opposition stands firmly in support of focusing on compliance in order to ensure the integrity of our tax system. That is why we are supporting Bill C-48.

However, the massive size of this legislation demonstrates that there is still a huge amount of work to do in getting such technical changes legislated in a timely fashion. Failure to do so would hurt taxpayers and tax practitioners and make it difficult for a proper evaluation by Parliament.

I therefore urge my colleagues on all sides of the House to work to ensure that the bill receives thorough examination and discussion in Parliament. We will continue to work to ensure the integrity of our tax system with a more effective process when it comes to technical tax legislation. We need to continually demonstrate our respect for the hard work of Canadians and the taxes they send to Ottawa, and to reward that with transparency and predictability. New Democrats, when we get the opportunity in 2015, will do just that.

Message from the Senate

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I have the honour to inform the House that messages have been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills.

Bill C-50, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2013;

Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (elder abuse);

Bill C-300, An Act respecting a Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention;

Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures.

Report Stage Motions—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

O'Brien and Bosc further states that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He continued:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thank all hon. members for their attention.

Aboriginal Affairs

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

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

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

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

Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

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

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

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

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

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

Aboriginal Affairs

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aboriginal Affairs

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

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

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

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

Committees of the House

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

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

Concurrence Vote on Bill C-45--Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The Chair is now prepared to rule on the point of order raised a few moments ago by the House Leader of the Official Opposition with regard to the manner in which the motion for concurrence at report stage of Bill C-45 was moved yesterday evening.

I have looked into how events transpired last night and can report to the House that there was indeed a clerical oversight in the moving of the motion for concurrence at report stage. However, members will know that our practices do provide for this.

As is stated at page 440 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition:

A government bill standing on the Order Paper in one Minister’s name may be moved on his or her behalf by another Minister since the bill is considered an initiative of the entire Cabinet.

Members will know that it routinely happens that sponsoring ministers are not present when their bills are either introduced or are proceeding through the various stages of the legislative process. When that is the case, staff assisting the Speaker with forms will note the absence, insert the name of another minister, and the Chair carries on, indicating that one minister is moving a motion on behalf of another.

Last night, the staff had duly noted the Minister of Finance as moving the motion for concurrence, but when the time came to move the motion last evening, the minister had stepped out, and neither the staff nor the Chair noticed his absence, nor, might I say, was that raised by any member.

This kind of occurrence is, in my view, a minor oversight. It is our practice to consider that this progress of government bills represent the will of the cabinet. I will again refer the House to page 440 of O'Brien and Bosc. One minister is often cited by the Chair as moving a motion for the sponsoring minister who is absent.

That is how events are recorded in Journals, since the absence of the minister was drawn to the table's attention after the fact by a member. As it usually does, the table followed our practice and the Journals were drafted to indicate that the government House leader, who we knew to have been present, had moved the motion for the Minister of Finance.

Accordingly, at this time I cannot find in favour of the opposition House leader. I find that the House can proceed with debate on third reading of Bill C-45.

Concurrence Vote on Bill C-45

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order today to ask you to revoke the illegitimate final vote that took place last night on the report stage of Bill C-45. The motion put to the House was moved by a member who was not in his place and was, therefore, indisputably out of order, preventing a legitimate vote from being held.

Mr. Speaker, as you are well aware, motions form the basis of all debate and all decision making in the House. Without them, we simply cannot function.

The House of Commons Procedure and Practice second edition, is clear on this matter. It states:

The most basic components of this process are the “motion” and the “question”—the motion being a proposal that the House do something or express an opinion with regard to some matter; the question being the mechanism used to ask the House if it agrees with the motion.

It goes on later to say, “Without a motion and a question, there can be no debate”. I would add that neither can there be a vote, which is a decision on that motion.

The admissibility of a motion is a rule that is fundamental to the proper order and practise of our work. There are clear rules set out for all members to follow in terms of how motions must be constructed and proposed so that we are all working on a level playing field. Those rules even apply to a Minister of Finance.

Parliamentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition, states clearly:

Every motion that is duly moved and seconded is placed before the House by the Speaker as a question for the decision of the House.

The logical result of this rule in the negative is that a motion that is not duly moved cannot be placed before the members of this place for a decision. If a motion “finds no seconder”, it is dropped immediately. That is the result in the absence of a seconder. Therefore, the result for the absence of a mover can be no less severe. I am sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker.

O'Brien and Bosc, on page 556 and 557, states:

...the Speaker will first ensure that the Member wishes to proceed with the moving of the motion. If the sponsor of a motion chooses not to proceed (either by not being present or by being present but declining to move the motion), then the motion is not proceeded with and is dropped from the Order Paper, unless allowed to stand at the request of the government.

No such request was made last night by the government. When the member is not present and a motion is not moved on his or her behalf, the Speaker can have no option but to conclude that the member no longer wishes to proceed.

Erskine and May clarifies this process in Parliamentary Practice, twenty-first edition, where it states in chapters 17:

A motion of which notice has been given may be moved by one of the Members in whose name it stands....

But a motion standing in the name of a Minister may be moved by any other Minister in accordance with the constitutional practice which permits the Ministers to act for each other on the grounds of the collective nature of the Government.

There is no problem with this rule, to be perfectly clear, and had one of the colleagues of the Minister of Finance moved the motion on his behalf, there would be no problem at all. However, this did not happen last night. The theoretical procedural possibility of something is not the same as it actually happening itself.

I was witness to what happened and I have reviewed the tape from last night and the facts are 100% correct. The Speaker moved the motion for report stage on Bill C-45, unamended, in the name of the Minister of Finance, but he was not in his place to move that motion. If the Minister of Finance had bothered to stay for the last few votes, this would not be an issue. If he had bothered to arrange with a colleague to move the motion in his name, this would not be an issue.

I have two final things to say. I note that Journals from yesterday reads that the government House leader did in fact somehow move the motion on behalf of his absent colleague. If you review the video, Mr. Speaker, and the Hansard from last night, the official record of Parliament, I am sure you will agree with me that it is not the case. Journals is not correct.

I am aware of my obligation to raise such questions at the earliest opportunity. To be clear, my colleague, the chief opposition whip, raised this with the Table as soon as was possible last night. She could not interrupt the Table during the vote and the House then moved to adjournment proceedings immediately after the vote because of the late hour.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, when the House entered the adjournment proceedings, there was no longer an opportunity to raise this issue and, therefore, this is my first chance to do so.

The government has been let off the hook for not following the letter as well as the spirit of too many rules too many times in Parliament: systematic curtailing of debate using time allocation; the absurd creation of a flawed system for more than one committee to study Bill C-45; the total denial of opposition amendments to all respects of its bills; and finally, the minister responsible for a bill could not be bothered to sit with his colleagues in the House while his motion on report stage was being dealt with.

The remedies are a few. The concern is that, in a few moments, debate will begin on the next stage of the bill.

Budget Implementation Legislation

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, last night the jobs and growth act passed unamended at report state. We will vote on the bill at third reading later today. I look forward to the vote.

However, Canadians should be disappointed in their NDP members and their reckless opposition allies in their tactics trying to delay Bill C-45, the jobs and economic growth bill. With global uncertainty facing the economy and a fragile global economy, our government will move ahead with the economic action plan to create jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

Infrastructure

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bridge to strengthen trade bill will ensure the successful and timely construction of one of Canada's most important infrastructure projects, a new bridge between Windsor and Detroit.

This legislation is critical as it would provide certainty to the private sector this project will not be delayed by lawsuits from a certain billionaire. Shockingly, the NDP and the MP for Windsor West who should know better are putting politics before progress and have introduced a motion to delete this from Bill C-45 and stop this bridge from moving forward.

Would n the minister explain to this House and to the member for Windsor West the importance of voting for Bill C-45 tonight?

Aerospace Industry

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

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday we received the report on the aerospace review. The aerospace industry represents 66,000 good-quality jobs and creates 92,000 additional jobs.

Montreal is the third-largest aerospace cluster in the world. The report makes more than 20 recommendations, which makes it clear that the federal government has not done its homework. The report provides a realistic portrait of the situation and issues the following warning:

“Failure to respond and adapt” will mean steady decline, “diminished industrial and innovative capacity, fewer rewarding jobs...and the gradual eclipse of an industry that has been a major contributor to the country's well-being”.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives' changing of the research and development program criteria in Bill C-45 is a direct blow to the aerospace industry.

I want to acknowledge the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, which is holding its summit this week in Ottawa. I also want to encourage the development of more energy-efficient airplanes and investments in this strategic sector of our industry, so that Canada continues to be an aerospace leader.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties and if you seek it I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, if the House has not disposed of the report 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, by 2 p.m. on Tuesday, December 4, the Speaker shall suspend the proceedings to allow members to make statements pursuant to Standing Order 31; followed by oral question period no later than 2:15 p.m.; and at 3 p.m. the House shall resume the proceedings on Bill C-45.

Jobs and Growth Act, 2012

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak strongly against the government's omnibus budget bills and their repeated affronts to democracy, and, specifically, to the gutting of environment legislation in Bill C-45.

Previously, through economic action plan 2012 and Bill C-38, the government severely cut the budget to Environment Canada, gutted environmental legislation and cancelled the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. The Conservatives have also silenced dissent from environmental non-governmental organizations and have continued to muzzle government scientists. In so doing, they affect our economy and environment today and in the future.

Through Bill C-45, our world-renowned natural heritage is being further imperilled by a government that fails to understand that water is the foundation of life and that it is essential for socio-economic systems and healthy ecosystems.

The World Bank states that, “water is at the centre of economic and social development”, and is elemental across economic sectors including agriculture, energy and industry. Good management of water resources is fundamental to moving to a green economy.

In Canada, we depend on water for drinking, fishing, swimming. This precious resource further supports farming, recreation, tourism and economic growth.

Unfortunately, water management is becoming more challenging with climate change. Bob Sandford, lead author of Simon Fraser University's adaptation to climate change team, warned in 2011 that:

The days when Canadians take an endless abundance of fresh water for granted are numbered...Increasing average temperatures, climate change impacts on weather patterns and extensive changes in land use are seriously affecting the way water moves through the hydrological cycle in many parts of Canada, which is seriously impacting water quantity and quality.

As a result, the team called for a dramatic reform of Canada's water governance structures and made many recommendations: the recognition that water is a human right integral to the health and security of Canadians; the development of a new Canadian water ethic; the creation of a national water commission to advance policy reform; an improved understanding of the importance of water to Canadians' way of life; national water conservation guidelines and improved monitoring; and coordinated long-term national strategies for sustainably managing water in the face of climate change.

In stark contrast to those recommendations, the government would strip federal oversight from thousands of Canadian waterways through its latest anti-democratic and draconian omnibus legislation, Bill C-45. Specifically, the government would abolish the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which currently requires federal approval for development on the thousands of bodies of water across the country that are large enough to float a canoe.

The Navigable Waters Protection Act of 1882, considered Canada's first environmental law, would be changed to the navigation protection act. The focus of the law would no longer be to protect navigable waters but, rather, to protect navigation.

Canada has a huge number of lakes. The exact number is unknown. However, of the roughly 32,000 lakes previously protected under the old act, just 97 lakes would now be protected under the new act. Sixty-two rivers and three oceans would also be protected under the new act. Construction of bridges, dams and other projects would be permitted on most waterways without prior approval under the new act.

Needless to say, the original budget said nothing about restricting federal controls over lakes and rivers.

Jessica Clogg, executive director and senior counsel, West Coast Environmental Law, stated:

The Bill C-45...is a wolf in sheep’s clothing that will have major implications for the environment and human health. So much for the federal government’s promise that the bill would focus on budget implementation and contain no surprises.

The rewritten law would strip environmental protection once provided by the mandatory federal review. Ecojustice's executive director, Devon Page, said:

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.

Astoundingly, 90% of the lakes that would still be designated as protected are in Conservative ridings, 20% are in NDP ridings and only 6% are in Liberal ridings. Unbelievably, pipelines would be directly exempted from this law. Under the new act, pipeline impacts on Canada's waterways would no longer be considered in environmental assessments.

Instead of killing the old Navigable Waters Protection Act, the government should reverse the changes that would strip previous environmental protection of lakes, work to protect Canada's coastline, establish a network of marine protected areas in Canada's waters, encourage the sustainable use of coastal and marine resources, prioritize clean water, restore our freshwater ecosystems, clean up contaminated sediment and protect and restore essential habitat.

The government must stop repeatedly abusing Parliament by ramming through massive omnibus bills and turning the legislative process into a farce.

Two years ago, the government introduced an 880-page omnibus bill, representing half the entire workload of Parliament from the previous year. This past spring, the government introduced Bill C-38, a 425-page omnibus budget implementation bill that made sweeping changes to employment insurance, immigration and old age security. An astonishing 150 pages were devoted to destroying 50 years of environmental oversight. None of these changes were in the Conservative platform. This time, Bill C-45 is a 443-page omnibus bill that would alter some 60 pieces of legislation, including the Canada Labour Code, the Fisheries Act, the Indian Act and the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

Canadians are tiring of the government's omnibus bills. Last spring there were demonstrations across the country to protest the omnibus budget bill, Bill C-38. Five hundred organizations joined the BlackOutSpeakOut campaign to stand up for democracy and the environment. Three thousand two hundred pages of complaints flooded the office of the finance minister and there was extensive international criticism.

In 1994, the MP for Calgary Southwest, our current Prime Minister, criticized omnibus legislation suggesting that the subject matter of such bills was so diverse that a single vote on the content would put members in conflict with their own principles. He said, “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.”

The Conservative government's action reek of hypocrisy. The Prime Minister is now using the very tactics he once denounced. Bill C-45 hides large changes to environmental laws, subverts democracy and weakens the protection of ecosystems.

The government's record on the environment is appalling, as recognized repeatedly by its bottom of the barrel environment performances. The 2008 Climate Change Performance Index ranked Canada 56th out of 57 countries in terms of tackling emissions. In 2009, the Conference Board of Canada ranked Canada 15th out of 17 wealthy industrialized nations on environmental performance. In 2010, Simon Fraser University ranked Canada 24th out of 25 countries. This week we have been ranked 58th out of 61 countries on climate policy.

Under successive Conservative governments, the economy has been repeatedly pitted against the environment. Laws have been weakened and repealed to fast-track development with the environment and the health and safety of Canadians being put at risk. When did the debate change from protecting the environment in order to safeguard human health and well-being to gutting environmental protection in order to streamline expanding growth? Is it not time we made human health, particularly for our most vulnerable, our children, a consideration in the environmental debate?

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague carefully. Unfortunately, the Conservatives are once again presenting us with a monstrosity of a bill, like the one they presented last spring, Bill C-38, in which they attacked old age security, employment insurance and health transfers to the provinces.

Once again, Bill C-45 shows that the Conservatives have not learned their lesson; they still want to keep Canadians in the dark and they want to prevent the members here in the House from doing the job they were elected by Canadians to do.

I would like my colleague to expand on this question: why is the government acting this way?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be on this side of the House as part of the Conservative team and it is good to be able to talk today on Bill C-45, the jobs and growth act, 2012.

While I am on feet, I did want to salute the Parliamentary Spouses Association, which today held a fundraiser that raised $10,000 for the Tim Horton Children's Foundation. I would like to salute everyone who had a part in that today.

Bill C-45 is an act to implement certain provisions of the budget. It is the jobs and growth act, and our plan is working. We have seen 820,000 net new jobs created since the recession started in July 2009. There are more people working today than before the recession began, and that is because of the prudent leadership of our Prime Minister, Minister of Finance and our strong plan to ensure that our economy remains strong.

We are among the leaders in economic growth in the industrial world and our debt to GDP ratio is among the lowest in the world. Truly, Canada is the envy of the world right now because of our financial position.

We have had some independent accolades. Members do not have to take my word for it, although I would appreciate it if they would. Canada has had the best banking system in the world for five years in a row, according to the World Economic Forum. As my colleague before me mentioned, Forbes magazine has indicated that Canada is the best country in the world in which to set up a business.

However, we know that the economic recovery is fragile. We cannot take it for granted. We have seen sluggish growth the world over, including Europe, and there are concerns about the fiscal cliff in the United States. There is uncertainty everywhere around the world, in Greece, Italy and Spain. In many countries, the economic future does not look bright. We have to be concerned about that as Canadians. Even though we have had a good run of economic growth, we cannot assume that it will continue forever. That is why we need strong leadership and the strong measures included in Bill C-45.

We must remain vigilant if we are to maintain the significant economic advantage that we have built up over the last number of years. That means continuing to promote things like responsible resource development. We need to continue to promote things like our oils sands and our natural resource sector, provided that we do so in a way that is both economically beneficial and environmentally responsible, and that is what we have committed to doing.

We need to continue to maintain a low-tax plan for jobs and growth. I heard a previous questioner indicate that perhaps we should be raising taxes in order to keep our economy strong. However, on the Conservative side of the House, we disagree. We believe that we need our low-tax plan for jobs and growth. Raising taxes would not lead to growth but in fact hinder growth.

We need to continue to promote trade of our Canadian goods and services, not just to our traditional trading partners but also with the developing world. We need to look to countries that need the things we produce and we need to continue to promote our interests in those countries. That is why I am so pleased that the Minister of International Trade is away from Canada a lot because he is working on our behalf to secure new markets for our goods and services. I want to thank him for that. Indeed, we have learned that we cannot afford to rely solely on the United States because it has economic troubles of its own. We cannot have all of our eggs in that basket. Therefore, we need to continue to promote trade.

These are the kinds of things, in my view, that we need to continue to maintain for Canada's economic advantage. However, there are a few specific items in Bill C-45 that I do want to address, such as improvements to the first nations land management system.

My riding is home to 33 first nation bands. Many of them are under the first nations land management regime. Our government is committed to working with first nations to create conditions that will accelerate economic development opportunities.

Giving interested first nations greater control over their reserve lands and resources would bring a brighter and more prosperous future for them. Our government has already taken steps to enable interested first nations to assume greater control of their own land and resources under the First Nations Land Management Act. I am encouraged to see so many first nations in my riding under that regime.

Under the first nations land management framework, first nations can opt out of the 34 land related sections of the Indian Act and establish their own regimes to govern their lands, resources and environment. Thanks to the actions of our government, in January 2012, there were 18 new entrants that came under the framework. Today, there are 56 first nations that are operating and developing their own land codes. We want to expedite the process to allow more first nations to participate.

On March 15, 2012, the National Aboriginal Economic Development Board voiced its concern with the current process. It said:

First nations do not have an ability to move swiftly in developing their lands as a result of the restrictions that arise under the Indian Act and the red tape that comes with them.

The Auditor General has also identified the designation and leasing process to be a cause of unnecessarily lengthy approval times.

Bill C-45 proposes changes to the First Nations Land Management Act that would reduce voting thresholds to a simple majority vote, eliminating the need to hold repeated votes over a one or two-year period. What sometimes happens now is that if a majority of members of a first nation do not choose to cast their ballot, the First Nations Land Management Act requires them to hold a second vote, which takes time and resources and unnecessarily slows the process. One can imagine if we applied the same rule to a municipality that said it were electing a council and that if over 50% of the people did not bother to show up to vote, that process was not good enough. We think that process needs to be changed so there is one vote with a simple majority allowing first nations to control their own lands.

The second change would eliminate the need for an approval by order in council and allow the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to authorize land designation. This would make the system more efficient and allow first nations more control, thereby reducing approval times for first nations land management by several months. The streamlining of land related approval processes would encourage economic development on first nations land and create jobs, growth and long-term prosperity there as well.

I also want to talk about something that affects small businesses in my riding. The majority of businesses in my riding are certainly small and medium-size enterprises. Just as they are across the country, they are the major engine of job creation in my riding. Budget 2011 contained a hiring credit for small businesses of up to $1,000. It provided relief to small businesses by helping to defray the cost of new hires. Bill C-45 would extend the credit to an employer's increase on its 2012 EI premiums over those paid in 2011. It has the potential to help over 536,000 employers whose total EI premiums were below $10,000 in 2011. This would reduce payroll costs by $205 million and allow small and medium-size enterprises to continue to hire more folks and to keep their costs in check so they can continue to drive our economy forward.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business said of the credit:

It is a popular measure among all SMEs but is particularly important among growing firms as it helps them strengthen business performance.

I met with some constituents who had concerns about pipelines in my riding. They asked about credits for oil and gas companies and why we were not doing more to promote green energy. I encouraged them to read Bill C-45, which is rationalizing and phasing out over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. We are also promoting the use of green technology through the accelerated tax credit program there.

I want to sum up by saying Bill C-45 continues our government's plan for jobs and growth. The plan is working. The plan is having real results for Canadians. I encourage all members of the House to support it.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today on behalf of my constituents in Richmond Hill to speak to the jobs and growth act, 2012, which would implement key provisions in our economic action plan 2012 tabled in March of this year.

Measures in Bill C-45 would continue to grow Canada's economy, fuel job creation and secure our long-term prosperity. I am also pleased to say how truly honoured I am to serve the good residents of Richmond Hill. They are hard-working, dedicated to their families and communities and committed to improving the lives of those less fortunate than themselves.

Richmond Hill is also a community of entrepreneurs. In fact, nearly 85% of all businesses in my riding employ fewer than 20 people. Therefore, any measure which helps small business is very important to them. That is why I strongly support the measures in Bill C-45 and economic action plan 2012.

I would also like to take a minute at this point to reflect on the economic action plan 2012. As members know, it was tabled eight months ago and has received the most debate of any budget in recent history. It is a continuation of our long-term vision, first set out in 2006.

Fortunately, we had many fundamentals of that plan in place, like paying down the debt, before the global economic recession struck. Also fortunately, because of the foresight and the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, we have successfully weathered that storm.

Since July 2009, employment has increased by over 820,000 net new jobs. That is more than 390,000 jobs above the pre-recession high, which is by far the strongest growth seen among G7 countries through the recovery. Moreover, the private sector has been the primary driver of new job creation and 90% of all new jobs are full-time positions, with more than two-thirds of those in high wage industries.

Real GDP is also significantly above pre-recession levels, which is again the best performance by far in the G7. In short, Canada has come through the global economic storm well and the rest of the world has noticed.

For example, both the IMF and the OECD expect Canada to be among the strongest growing economies in the G7 over the next year and for the fifth year in a row, the World Economic Forum has rated Canada's banking system as the world's soundest. Forbes Magazine has ranked Canada number one in its annual review of the best countries for business. Three noted credit rating agencies, Moody's, Fitch, and Standard and Poor's, have reaffirmed their top ratings for Canada and it is expected Canada will maintain its triple-A rating in the year ahead.

Looking at this year's budget and its enabling legislation, Bill C-45, we can be confident that the measures it contains will continue our recovery and promote job creation and economic growth for all Canadians. It is worth noting that the commitment to manage public finances in a responsible manner has been a key element of our government's comprehensive long-term agenda.

We have done so in order to foster strong sustainable long-term economic growth and create the high-quality value-added jobs of tomorrow. In addition to paying down the debt prior to the global recession, we have followed through on this agenda by implementing broad based tax reductions and investing in knowledge and infrastructure.

Economic action plan 2012 further advances this agenda by announcing a set of measures to improve conditions for business investment, encourage responsible resource development, promote innovation to support research and development and to facilitate greater participation in the labour force by under-represented groups.

These are all goals that my residents in Richmond Hill support. The jobs and growth act, 2012 moves ahead with many important steps to build a strong economy and create jobs.

The bill would support families and communities by improving the registered disability savings plan and would help Canadians save for retirement by implementing the tax framework for pooled registered pension plans. It would close tax loopholes and take landmark action to ensure that pension plans for federal public sector employees would be sustainable and fair compared to those offered in the private sector.

I would like to highlight one of the most important enabling legislative items to my riding and that is with respect to pooled registered pension plans.

The reality is that most entrepreneurs and small businesses in Richmond Hill and elsewhere simply do not have pension plans. Pooled registered pension plans are an important step toward providing an innovative, new, low-cost private pension option to millions of Canadians currently without access to a workplace pension plan. This includes not just employees but employers and the self-employed.

The House may recall in December 2010 there was a unanimous agreement at the meeting of federal and provincial finance ministers to pursue a framework for PRPPs as an effective and appropriate way to help bridge existing gaps in the retirement system. This new landmark program that will help Canadians save for their retirement is a result of federal and provincial governments working together to help ensure the long-term strength of Canada's retirement system.

Another tremendous aspect of Bill C-45 is the action it proposes to help ensure the sustainability of public sector pensions. Unlike previous governments that were content to ignore questions of long-term affordability, we are taking the fiscally responsible position of putting the long-term state of Canada's finances first, even introducing landmark reforms for members of Parliament and senators' pensions. Next to jobs and the economy, this has been one of the most often mentioned issues in my riding. We are taking the necessary steps to make public sector pension plans sustainable, responsible and fair.

We are doing this in two important ways. First, we are moving the public sector pension plan to a fifty-fifty contribution arrangement, finally making public sector employee contributions equal to what the government contributes. Second, for employees who join the federal public service starting next year, the normal age of retirement will be raised from 60 to 65. These two important changes will go a long way to promoting the long-term sustainability of public sector pension plans, while ensuring they are fair to Canadian taxpayers.

Extending the hiring credit for small business is another important and positive step for my riding of Richmond Hill. By offsetting some of the EI premium increases when businesses grow their payroll, this measure has been very effective in helping small businesses to maintain or strengthen their business performance. I am glad to see that this measure is being extended.

I would also like to mention how important it is to cut red tape for small businesses. Over the years the growth of compliance items has become absolutely enormous. The red tape burden has been identified through our nationwide business consultations as a major impediment to job creation. That is why our government has taken steps to reduce unnecessary and duplicate compliance items so entrepreneurs can focus on what they do best, which is growing their business and creating jobs.

To summarize, the jobs and growth act, 2012 would continue our government's long-term and focused plan for low taxes, job creation and economic growth. This is what my residents in Richmond Hill have asked for and this is what our government intends to deliver.

I urge all members of the House to vote in favour of this budget so we can keep Canada's economy strong and keep Canadians working.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to acknowledge the apology from the member for Mississauga—Streetsville. That was a very classy thing to do and I thank him for that.

I would like to speak to Bill C-45. I am honoured to stand in the House to talk about Bill C-45, but one of the sad things about speaking to the bill is that I will be one of the few MPs who will get to do this, because once again the Conservatives have brought forward time allocation on the bill. I believe it is a record. I believe we are at 31. Unfortunately, when we take away democracy 31 times it is not cause to be proud.

I stand today speaking against Bill C-45, but again, it is with much dismay that we do not see enough people being able to debate in this House, with time allocation.

Ironically, Bill C-45 is entitled the jobs and growth act, and it entirely lacks significant measures to create jobs and stimulate growth in the long term for Canadians. Tax credits to small businesses are short term and very small in size. Support to business research and development has been cut. Where is the Canada-wide strategy to create good jobs, while 1.4 million Canadians are still unemployed?

The Minister of Finance announced during the November constituency week that the government will fall short of its own deficit targets. Worse still, the Conservatives have failed to outline any contingency plan to deal with slowing growth and increasingly negative fiscal indicators.

The Conservatives are focused on austerity measures that will act as a further drag on our economy. They have claimed that their budget is about job creation, but again, even they admit it will lead to 19,200 lost jobs in the public service and the PBO projects a total of 102,000 jobs lost.

In his appearance before the House of Commons finance committee on April 26, the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that the Conservative austerity budget would mean a loss of 43,000 jobs and would slow Canada's economic recovery. He confirmed that when combined with prior cuts, there would be a total of 103,000 jobs lost.

The PBO's numbers point to the fact that the budget would create a significant drag on our economy. Even the Centre for Policy Alternatives states: “In total, federal spending cuts could lead to the elimination of over 70,000 full time equivalent positions”. These are not only public sector losses. About half of these jobs would be lost in the private sector.

Taking a look at the changes to SR and ED and business R and D support, Bill C-45 would implement significant changes to SR and ED tax credit programs, as outlined in the budget. These changes would reduce the tax credit rate, particularly for large businesses, and eliminate the eligibility of capital expenses. This change could be highly distortional for firms' labour-capital ratios.

While the government has cut at least $500 million per year through the SR and ED, it has not introduced any new direct funding to replace this gap. The combined effects would be to reduce government support for business R and D at a time when Canadian businesses most need to increase innovation and productivity to succeed in an increasingly competitive global economy. This would particularly hit the manufacturing sector, and it is likely to drive firms to move their R and D activities to other countries with better incentives.

The Conservatives are engaged in cost cutting under the guise of addressing underperformance in innovation. They have done nothing to fix the complexity and overhead costs of applying for and administering SR and ED tax credits.

Another thing the bill is reducing and eliminating is the Navigable Waters Protection Act. It removes water protection from the name of the bill. Now it is just about navigation protection. This is not a small change, and it demonstrates the government's reckless attitude toward environmental protection.

In fact, the Conservatives would not allow these changes to be studied by the environment committee, despite the fact that the proposed changes have significant implication for our environment.

The government issued a press release, bragging about the change of the title from Navigable Waters Protection Act to the navigation protection act.

This type of measure shows just how out of touch Conservatives are with Canadians' desire to protect the environment and build a sustainable economy. In fact, Bill C-45 completely guts the Navigable Waters Protection Act, with the exception of the 3 oceans, 97 lakes and 62 rivers. The act would no longer automatically apply to projects affecting waterways. This would leave thousands of waterways without protection, meaning fewer environmental reviews by Transport Canada. Efforts by the opposition to ensure protection for all navigable waters were defeated at committee.

Under Bill C-45, only 10 of Canada's 37 designated Canadian heritage rivers would be protected. Those left out of the new act include the Cowichan River, the Clearwater River, the Main River, the Margaree River in Nova Scotia and the Mattawa River, which is close to me. Speaking of what else is close to me, it is the city of Sudbury. The City of Greater Sudbury is known as the city of lakes. There are 330 lakes within the boundaries of the City of Greater Sudbury. Also my colleague from Nickel Belt would have the same concerns as I do.

When all of the lakes and rivers within a riding are eliminated from having the same protections, it makes one scratch one's head as to why we are doing this. Protecting our lakes and rivers is paramount. The City of Greater Sudbury, for example, as I mentioned, has Ramsey Lake within its city boundaries. People can fish and swim practically in downtown Sudbury. People in parts of the city use Ramsey Lake for their drinking water. That would no longer be protected under the Navigable Waters Protection Act or the navigation protection act. That is sad. It leads people to wonder what kind of country we will be leaving for our children.

We need to ensure that our children have places to swim and fish. We need to protect the wildlife within those areas as well, from fish habitat to duck habitat. Throughout my riding and northern Ontario, lakes and rivers would no longer be protected. As I said, 97 lakes and 62 rivers are being protected, and that is what is being changed. We need to ensure we protect more lakes and rivers right across our country because we need to ensure we leave clean lakes, rivers and air for our kids in the future.

New Democrats oppose budget 2012 and its implementation bills, unless it is 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. As mentioned, this is another massive omnibus bill that contains a wide range of unrelated measures. The government is trying to ram legislation through Parliament without allowing Canadians and MPs to thoroughly examine it.

One thing my hon. colleague on the other side talked about earlier in his speech is the greatness of our nation. We are blessed to have resources from coast to coast to coast in forestry, mining in my community, lakes and rivers right across the country and the oil sands in Alberta. We should be debating the changes that are being proposed. Unfortunately, as I stated at the outset of my speech, there has been lack of debate and conversation because the government is shutting it down once again. There have been 31 time allocation motions, which is shameful, especially when we are talking about an issue that is so important to Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

The House resumed consideration of C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Bill C-45—Time Allocation

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

Mr. Speaker, I must say I was surprised to hear my friend, the Minister of State for Finance claim that everything in Bill C-45 and Bill C-38 was found in the budget. I think that has been pretty thoroughly disproven.

I would be interested to know on what page of the budget we can find the efforts in Bill C-45 to create barriers to tourism in Canada. That will hurt our economy and hurt our tourism sector. I can see no excuse whatsoever for bringing this forward without adequate consultation. The idea of having an international automated list for tourists from Europe, Australia or New Zealand who want to come to Canada is an added barrier in a sector that is currently struggling.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, people at home are truly worried. They are worried about what is in the budget and especially about the attitude of this government, which amended 70 acts with Bill C-38 and will amend 62 acts, without debate, with Bill C-45.

My question is for the minister. In light of the Conservatives' strategy, will they one day introduce a bill to automatically amend 200 or 300 laws, and then bid farewell to Parliament and parliamentarians for the rest of the year?

That is the kind of distortion of democracy we are seeing. People at home are worried about the Conservatives' brand of democracy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-45, in clause 321, be amended by adding after line 13 on page 291 the following: (2.1) The addition of the navigable waters listed below is deemed to be in the public interest and the governor in council shall, by regulation, as soon as is reasonably practicable after the day on which this act receives royal assent, add those navigable waters to the schedule, including, with respect to lakes, their approximate location in latitude and longitude and, with respect to rivers and riverines, the approximate downstream and upstream points, as well as a description of each of those lakes, rivers and riverines, and where more than one lake, river or riverine exists with the same name indicated in the list below, the governor in council shall select one to be added, namely:

The list is short: Ross Lake, Giauque Lake, La Loche Lakes, McCrea Lake, Bewick Lake, Broken Dish Lake, Sam McRae Lake, Magrum Lake, Winter Lake, Lac à Jacques, Greyling Lake, Basler Lake, Rummy Lake, Tatti Lake and Yellowknife River.

Points of Order

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

Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, I would point out the motion being made was made without notice and it requires an extraordinary remedy in the circumstances of unanimous consent of this House. Thus, at any point when it is clear that there is no unanimous consent, I think it is appropriate that be terminated.

I would like to move 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 five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage, and one sitting day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill, and at the expiry of the time provided for the consideration at report stage, and at 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the day allotted to consideration of the third 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 disposable of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

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

I will thank the Minister of Public Safety for his comments.

As the Speaker well knows, there is very clear direction to the House when a member is in the process of moving a unanimous consent motion. Some have been quite lengthy and complex in their nature. My friend is seeking to amend the omnibus legislation Bill C-45, which removes many tens of thousands of lakes and rivers from the protection of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which all members know well, and should know page 590 very well, says:

....a Member wishing to waive the usual notice requirement before moving a substantive motion would ask the unanimous consent of the House “for the following motion”, which is then read in extenso.

This is an important part of the instruction given to this House. After the motion has been read in extenso,

The Speaker then asks if the House gives its unanimous consent to allow the Member to move the motion.

It is impossible for the House to make a decision on a motion that has not yet been fully read. That is clearly the direction that has been given to this House.

We have had the former House leader for the government move such a motion on one of their own bills. It was extensive. It was long and complicated. However, the House gave leave for that member to read the extensive motion.

What I am a bit concerned about is that in the decision the Speaker just made to curtail the ability of the member for Halifax to read out the motion, the Speaker called for a question that has not yet been put. Clearly in our instructions that we follow stringently in this place, that question cannot be asked until it has been asked.

I will remind the Minister of Public Safety that the latitude given to members is a liberal latitude and that there is some extensiveness used in guiding the Speaker and this House as to what can be done under unanimous consent motions.

The clarity over the Speaker curtailing the ability of the member for Halifax to read the motion out, and then calling the House to answer the question yea or nay seems to me an impossibility and in direct contravention of the rules that guide this place.

I humbly seek some clarity as to how this process has proceeded.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I move that, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-45, in clause 321, be amended by adding, after line 13, on page 291, the following: (2.1) The addition of the navigable waters listed below is deemed to be in the public interest and the governor in council shall by regulation, as soon as it is reasonably practicable after the day on which this act receives royal assent, add those navigable waters to the schedule, including with respect to lakes their approximate location and latitude and longitude, and with respect to rivers and riverines the approximate downstream and upstream points, as well as a description of each of those lakes, rivers and riverines, and where more than one lake, river or riverine exists with the same name indicated in the list below, the Governor in Council shall select one to be added, namely:

Lac du Gros Morne, Emily Creek, Pendleton Lakes, Lac du Canard, Fifteen Mile Creek, George Creek, Petit lac des Chevaux, Upper Gimlet Lake, Tatisno Creek, Lac Lise, Healey Lake, Trapper Creek, Lac Boomerang, South Riske Creek, Grand lac Rouleau, Ferrier Lake, Charlie Chief Creek, Lac Walter, Slop Lake, Knife Creek, Petit lac du Rat Musqué, Lunch Lake, San Jose River, Lac de la Bouderie, Twenty Mile Creek, Hendrix Creek, Lac Long, Petitot River, Rivière Yamaska Nord, Hopian Lake, Sand Creek, Lac Blanc, Francis Creek, Taltzen Lake, Lac Bellevue, Three Mount Bay, Genlyd Creek, Grand lac Marlow, Davis Lake, Holte Creek, Ruisseau de la Belle Rivière, Hilltop Lake, Morrisey Lake, Lac Faudeux, Toronto Lake, Skeena River, Lac des Chasseurs, Moss Lake, Sandell River, Lac de la Ligne, Carafel Lake, West Road (Blackwater) River, Ruisseau Bonhomme, Partridge Lake, Peter Aleck Creek, Lac Dupire, Lipsy Lake, Pitka Creek, Lac Beaver, Grass Lake, Fiftyseven Creek, Lac des Érables, Minnow Lake, Ormond Creek, Lac Fortmac, Black Sturgeon Lake, Ling Creek, Lac de la Crute, Alexander Lake, Bulkley River, Lac Côme, Tompkins Lake, Red Rock Creek, Lac Mikwasau, Little Boulder Lake, American Creek, Lac Vert, White Spruce Creek, Lac Rock, Porter Lake, Lussier River, Lac de la Montagne, MacFarlane River, Nome Creek, Lac Loan, Talbot Creek, Alix Lakes, Ellis Creek, Coglistiko River, Rivière Nouvelle, Betula Lake, Porcupine Lake, Lac Clapier, Grass Creek, Kwanika Creek, Lac à Florant, Boffin Lake, Cornwall Creek, Lac Simard, June Lake, Fortress Lake, Lac Bass, Bolton Creek, Conkle Lake, McCuaig Lake, Lac Ouimet, Larder Lake, Kaiser Bill Lake, Lac du Cerf, Turner Lake, Lac Briend, Pistol Lake, Wasley Creek, Lac Sam, Alexander Lake, Petite rivière Rimouski, Lyn Creek, Lac Otter, Misema River, Keily Creek, Lac Alfred, Flora Lake, Lac du Pylône, Twin Birch Lake, Swamp Creek, Lac à Théodore, Paulson Lake, Lac Sept Milles, Sydney Creek, Lac Doré, McKenna Lake, Cambridge Creek, Lacs Daviault, Chapleau River, Lac de Boue, Grassy Lake, Jackson Lake, Lac du Pont de Cèdre, Walker Creek, Lac Watson, Suez Pit, South Albert Creek, Lac Albanel, Hand Lake, Lac Verrier, Burgess Lake, Thomas Creek, Rivière Chibouet, South Nation River, Chapperon Creek, Petit lac du Castor, Brewery Lake, Étang Irving, Dorothy Lake, Ramhorn Creek, Lac Savignon, Wilson Lake, Durney Creek, Lac Bixley, Swartman Lake, Red Deer Creek, Lac Petasoon,

Sandcherry Creek, Fern Creek, Salmon Arm, Indian River, Lac à L'Aéroplane, Two Island Lake, Etsho Creek, Lac des Robin, Hemlock Lake, Selman Creek, Lac Perdu, Kilpecker Creek, Kitza Creek, Lac Tourville, Hub Lake, Soo River, Anders Lake, Suschona Creek, Rivière Bourlamaque, Ambrose Lake, Big Bar Creek, Lac à Dick, Fullerton Lake, Meldrum Creek, Lac Carbert, Vrooman Creek, Troutline Creek, Lac du Grand Homme, Jawbone Lake, Spahomin Creek, Lac Pougnet, Laval Lake, Pulley Creek, Lac Roy, Rivière Escuminac, Lac Ti-Jean, Lac Carvel, Lac Numéro Trois, Lac Rouge, Lac Secondon, Fullerton Lake, Donaldson Lake, Steed Lake, Clay Lake, Port Darlington, Mackay Lake, Bat Lake, Kettle Lake, The Cut, Pirie Lake, Wood River, Grant Creek, Halden Creek, Jarvis Lakes, Chipesia Creek, Klicho Creek, Eleven Mile Creek, Hewson Lake, Roe Lake, Pulley Creek, Spahomin Creek, Troutline Creek, Akehurst Lake, Little Bobtail Lake, Scott Creek, Hemp Creek, Kuthai Lake, Webster Creek, Orren Creek—

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I am honoured to speak to Bill S-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, or the Nuclear Terrorism Act.

This bill was introduced in the Senate on March 27, 2012. It amends the Criminal Code in order to implement the criminal law requirements contained in two international treaties to combat terrorism.

The Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, commonly referred to as the CPPNM, was amended in 2005 and ratified by Canada. If my memory serves me well, Canada also signed the 2005 International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, the ICSANT.

The Nuclear Terrorism Act includes 10 clauses that create four new offences under part II of the Criminal Code. This legislation will make it illegal to possess, use or dispose of nuclear or radioactive materials or devices or to commit an act against a nuclear facility or its operations with the intent to cause death, serious bodily harm or substantial damage to property or the environment.

Second, it will make it illegal to use or alter nuclear or radioactive materials or devices or to commit an act against a nuclear facility or its operations with the intent to compel a person, government or international organization to do or refrain from doing any act.

Third, it will make it illegal to commit an indictable offence under an act of Parliament with intent to obtain nuclear or radioactive material or a device or to obtain access to or control of a nuclear facility.

Finally, it will make it illegal to threaten to commit any of the three other offences.

These are serious offences that have dangerous consequences for the safety of Canadians. Bill S-9 was introduced to address these concerns and to comply with the requirements of the various conventions that were signed or ratified by Canada in 2005. This responds to these problems and the danger posed to the safety of Canadians by acts that could be carried out from close by or far away with nuclear materials or devices. That is why we support the bill. We hope it will be referred to committee so we can properly examine the bill and make the necessary changes, and in order for a report to be prepared.

As an aside, this is what the government should have done with Bill C-45. The government should have split the bill into a number of smaller bills so that they could be examined in committee in keeping with procedure and democracy. Unfortunately, the government did not do so.

Let us get back to Bill S-9, which is what we are talking about today. This bill finally meets Canada's international obligations under the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. This means that we must extend the application of international measures beyond protecting against the proliferation of nuclear materials to include protection of nuclear facilities.

This bill also reinforces Canada's obligation under UN Security Council resolution 1540 to enforce effective measures to prevent the proliferation of nuclear materials as well as chemical and biological weapons, but that is another matter.

Finally, I must point out that this law meets a requirement with which Canada has been supposed to comply since 2005. Yet, it is rather strange that it was the Senate, an unelected chamber, that finally fulfilled this obligation.

On the other side of the House, the Conservatives have been twiddling their thumbs since 2006 instead of fulfilling the obligation resulting from the international convention that Canada ratified in 2005, which seeks to implement laws and measures to prevent direct or indirect nuclear threats and ensure that Canadians are safe.

In this regard, it is important to mention that the NDP is determined to promote multilateral diplomacy and international co-operation, particularly in areas of common concern, for example, everything to do with keeping Canada and the world safe from nuclear threats. We must therefore work with the other main countries working on ratifying these conventions.

Canada has also agreed to be legally bound by these conventions. Therefore, it is important to fulfill our obligations before the implementation process at the national level is completed. If I am not mistaken, that is coming very soon, in 2014. So, it was time to act. Unfortunately, as I said, I do not understand why the Conservatives dragged their feet during all that time. They have been in office since 2006 and they have done absolutely nothing. Had they asked for the NDP's co-operation, we would have helped them pass this legislation, which respects international conventions.

In fact, we want to be co-operative. That is why we are going to support this bill at second reading and examine it more thoroughly in committee, pursuant to a democratic process, as I mentioned earlier. In Canada's democratic institutions, it is absolutely necessary, critical and relevant to follow a process whereby a study is properly conducted by a committee. We must have time to prepare, to call experts, to listen to them, to weigh the pros and cons, and to write a report that is submitted to the House of Commons. Again, that was not done in the case of Bill C-45. The approach used was undemocratic, and the Conservatives are the ones who resorted to it.

It is quite telling to see that it is the Senate, an unelected body, that proposed this legislation at last. What was the Conservative government doing during all that time? Nothing. The Conservatives stood idly by. That is what is deplorable, because the NDP was prepared to co-operate with them.

We fully support respecting international conventions. Since 2005, Canada has signed two of those very important conventions. That is the direction we must take. We must properly follow a legislative and democratic process. That is why we support this bill. We want it to pass.

Incidentally, the New Democratic Party also believes that we should take a serious look at the issue of nuclear safety and meet our international obligations to co-operate more efficiently with other countries. It is important to ensure international co-operation. We have long enjoyed a good international reputation. Unfortunately, under the Conservatives, that reputation has really been tarnished, whether we are talking about compliance with conventions or the environment.

We are presently in Doha and, once again, we are collecting fossil awards because we refuse to co-operate with other countries. We now have a bad reputation on the world stage. That is not what New Democrats want. On the contrary, they want co-operation, whether the issue is nuclear safety or the environment.

I would urge the Conservatives to change their ways to ensure better co-operation with other countries. We must all support this bill to ensure the safety of Canadians and of other countries.

Bill C-45—Notice of time allocation motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I must advise an agreement has not been reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) concerning the proceedings at report stage and third reading of Bill C-45, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures. Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at those stages.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I will first wish my former Liberal counterpart, the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, well on his newest mission.

Yesterday was probably an auspicious day for the former astronaut to launch a Liberal leadership campaign. A member of my staff has told me that November 28 was Red Planet Day. While the member's ideas and proposals will no doubt be well suited for the red party, it is yet to be determined whether they will actually be better suited for Mars or for Earth. We will wait and see.

The hon. member for Papineau might want to be aware of the House leader bump. My first NDP counterpart after the election now resides in Stornoway. Meanwhile, I want to welcome and congratulate the new Liberal House leader, the hon. member for Beauséjour. I look forward to continuing the very positive relationship that I enjoyed working together with his predecessor. I genuinely and sincerely wish his predecessor the best of luck.

I am sure that the new House leader will be keen to hear that we will resume the report stage debate on Bill C-45, the jobs and growth act, 2012, this afternoon.

After almost 4,600 votes in the House and committee on our 2012 economic action plan, I am pleased to say that we are in the home stretch of implementing our budget for this year.

Canadians will soon see important measures such the hiring credit for small business extended, greater tax relief for investing in clean energy, and strengthened registered disability savings plan rules.

To the great chagrin of the New Democrats no doubt, Canadians will still not see within that budget a $21.5 billion job killing carbon tax or the $6 billion GST tax grab that I know they wish to see implemented. It does not matter how many hundreds of amendments they put forward, we simply will not accede to their tax and spend initiatives.

The House will consider Bill C-45 on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday next week.

We will resume second reading debate on Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act, tomorrow. We will get back to second reading of Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act, if we have time.

On Thursday and Friday next week, we will work through a number of bills before the House, including: Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals act, which was reported back from committee this morning; Bill C-37, the increasing offenders' accountability for victims act; Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act, should it be reported back from committee; and the other bills I have mentioned, if we have not had a chance to wrap up those debates.

Finally, for the benefit of the House and particularly committees meeting on the supplementary estimates, I am planning for the last supply day of this fall to be on Monday, December 10. I expect that I will get back to the House next week at some point to designate that date formally.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know you look forward to this with some expectations.

I am honoured to rise on behalf of the official opposition to ask the government what it has planned for the House for the rest of this week and for next week.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the government House leader appealed to you to reject the idea of allowing separate votes on separate questions facing this House. He did so on the grounds that the amendments would not be accepted by the government anyway. What is the point of us trying to fix bad Conservative bills? According to the Conservative government, reviewing and amending bills is some sort of annoyance that it wants to do away with entirely.

However, the truth is that the government has had a terrible record of getting its own legislation right. It is a bit like trying to unpack a Russian Matryoshka nesting doll. Let us review.

Bill C-4 was panned by so many critics that we lost count. It was left to die on the order paper by the Conservatives.

Bill C-10, the omnibus crime bill, was panned by the opposition. We tried to amend it but the Conservatives rejected the amendments. They then tried to make those very same changes later on, which you, Mr. Speaker, had to reject. The changes finally got made in the unelected and unaccountable Senate down the way.

Bill C-30, the Internet snooping bill, was so bad that, once explained by the Minister of Public Safety to Canadians, the Conservatives refused to even acknowledge that it was ever in existence. That was some bit of political spin, “You're either with us or you're with the other folks”.

Bill C-31 was panned by the opposition and others. The Conservatives had to amend it at the committee themselves.

Bill C-45, the monster budget bill and the second omnibus bill, actually includes many provisions to fix the first monster omnibus bill in the spring.

This would all be funny if it were not so serious and would have such an impact on the lives of Canadians.

Lastly, I want to say how disappointing it is that the government chose to be partisan instead of saving lives in the developing world, when it voted against Bill C-388 yesterday. This bill would have made it easier for Canada to send generic medications to those who need them most. What an unacceptable decision on the part of the Conservative government.

What does the undemocratic leaning Conservative government have in store for Canadians next?

Report Stage Motions—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Before delivering a ruling regarding the report 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, the Chair would like to take a moment to respond briefly to certain arguments raised yesterday by the hon. House leaders of the government and the official opposition. A more comprehensive ruling, dealing with their points in detail, will be delivered at a later date. Today I will limit my comments to only a few key points.

Yesterday, the hon. opposition House leader raised a point of order about the manner in which votes were applied in June of this year at the report stage of Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures. He expressed concern that, as a result of the grouping of votes at report stage, members may, in essence, have had to cast a single vote that would apply to several motions, some of which they supported and some of which they opposed.

Let me say at the outset that analyzing report stage motions for purposes of selection, grouping for debate and voting is never an easy task and represents a significant challenge for the Chair, particularly in cases such as the present one where a very large number of motions have been placed on notice. As I stated in my ruling of June 11, 2012 in relation to Bill C-38:

In my selection of motions, in their grouping and in the organization of the votes, I have made every effort to respect both the wishes of the House and my responsibility to organize the consideration of report stage motions in a fair and balanced manner.

The Chair is being asked to consider the suggestion that every motion to delete a clause should be voted on separately. This would diverge from our practice where, for voting purposes where appropriate, a long series of motions to delete are grouped for a vote. Since the effect of deleting a clause at report stage is, for all practical purposes, the same as negativing a clause in committee, to change our practice to a one deletion, one vote approach could be seen as a repetition of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill in committee, something which the House is specifically enjoined against in the notes to Standing Orders 76(5) and 76.1(5), which state that the report stage is not meant to be a reconsideration of the committee stage.

That said, though, it has been a long-standing practice for the Chair to select motions to delete clauses at report stage. I reminded the House of our practices in that regard in my ruling in relation to Bill C-38 when I stated, “motions to delete clauses have always been found to be in order and it must also be noted have been selected at report stage”.

To provide just two examples, I would refer members to a ruling by Speaker Milliken regarding the report stage of Bill C-50 on May 30, 2008, which can be found at page 6341 of the Debates of the House of Commons, as well as my own ruling regarding the report stage of Bill C-9, which can be found at page 2971 of the Debates for May 26, 2010.

In the absence of any specific guidance from the House with regard to motions to delete and other matters raised in the points of order, the Speaker cannot unilaterally modify the well-established current practice. Accordingly, with regard to the report stage of Bill C-45, the Chair will be guided by my past rulings and, in particular, by the ruling on Bill C-38.

Committees of the House—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I am now prepared to rule on the points of order raised on November 26, 2012, by the hon. House leader for the official opposition and the member for Kings—Hants, both of which arose from proceedings in the Standing Committee on Finance during its consideration of Bill C-45, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures.

I would like to thank the hon. House leader of the official opposition and the hon. member for Kings—Hants for having raised their concerns, as well as the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for their interventions.

In raising his point of order, the opposition House leader asserted that the Standing Committee on Finance, through the adoption of a timetabling motion on October 31, 2012, regarding how it would conduct its proceedings on Bill C-45, went beyond its mandate and usurped the authority of the House when it invited other standing committees to study particular sections of Bill C-45 and to forward any proposed amendments back to the finance committee. He drew particular attention to that part of the finance committee's timetabling motion that provided for amendments to the bill recommended by other committees to be deemed proposed to the finance committee and must be considered in its proceedings along with amendments proposed by members of the committee. He argued that, as the House had referred the bill specifically and solely to the finance committee and had not adopted a motion of instruction authorizing other committees to study specific parts of the bill and subsequently report back to the House in the usual manner, the 13th report of the committee on Bill C-45 should be ruled out of order.

In replying to these arguments, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons insisted that the Standing Committee on Finance had at no time relinquished any of its authority over the committee proceedings on Bill C-45, as it had simply invited other committees to offer suggested changes to the legislation. Further, he stated that there was an established practice whereby a committee charged with studying a bill has consulted other committees by inviting them to study a particular subject matter in the bill and then provide feedback.

The point of order raised by the member for Kings—Hants centred on the manner in which the committee dealt with the amendments to the bill which he, as a member of the committee, had submitted. He pointed out that the motion adopted by the committee on October 31, 2012, specified that once a specific time was reached, “the Chair shall put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, each and every question necessary to dispose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill”, and explained that, accordingly, the chair of the committee ruled that the committee would not be voting on any amendments on notice which had not been moved prior to the deadline.

Because the committee overturned that decision by the Chair, the member for Kings—Hants argued that the committee forced votes to be held on all amendments submitted, even those which had yet to be moved. He alleged that the removal of his discretion to decide which amendments he wanted to move, coupled with the overturning of the Chair’s procedurally sound ruling, constituted an abuse of the committee process.

The government House leader began his remarks by pointing out that, as committees are masters of their own proceedings, such matters ought to be settled in committee. He then argued that a broader interpretation of the timetabling motion adopted by the finance committee was needed in order to have a consistent interpretation in committee and in the House of such practices. He asserted that, in overturning the chair's decision, the committee broke no rules, nor did the putting of the question on all amendments submitted result in the member's rights being denied.

The Chair is therefore being asked to address two questions. First, did the Standing Committee on Finance overstep its authority when it adopted a timetabling motion, which, among other provisions, asked other standing committees to consider the subject matter of various parts of Bill C-45 and to offer suggestions as to possible amendments?

Second, do the actions of the committee in overturning the Chair so as to have all amendments on notice, including all the amendments of the hon. member for Kings—Hants, deemed moved during clause-by-clause consideration constitute a denial of his rights as a member?

The government House leader and the parliamentary secretary have both argued that the approach taken by the Standing Committee on Finance, namely, to seek the assistance of other standing committees in the consideration of the subject matter of a bill, is not extraordinary. In support of that contention, the parliamentary secretary referred to a motion of the Standing Committee on Finance on April 28, 2008, when it proceeded in a similar fashion by requesting that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration consider the subject matter of a part of Bill C-50, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008 and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget.

While it may be overstating matters that this is “established practice”, it is true that committee practice is of considerable flexibility and fluidity. This is acknowledged by the opposition House leader himself who spoke of the need for committees to respect clear and distinct limits but declared to that, “when work is assigned to it by the House, it is largely up to the committee to decide how and when to tackle it”.

It should be noted that in the present case, even though other committees were invited to suggest amendments, it is the finance committee itself that chose to do so. It also decided how to deal with any suggested amendments and it retained the ability to decide whether or not to adopt any such amendments.

This is not the first time proceedings in a committee have given rise to procedural questions in the House and concerns about precedents being created. The Chair is reminded of a ruling given by Speaker Fraser on March 26, 1990, which can be found at page 9757 of the Debates of the House of Commons, in relation to a particularly controversial committee proceeding. He said:

I would caution members, however, in referring to this as a precedent. What occurred was merely a series of events and decisions made by the majority in a committee. Neither this House nor the Speaker gave the incidents any value whatsoever in procedural terms. One must exercise caution in attaching guiding procedural flags to such incidents and happenings.

The case at hand is not necessarily analogous to the one before us now but, nevertheless, this quote from Speaker Fraser serves as a useful reminder that committee practice is in continuous flux and that it is important to place particular occurrences in context.

As all members are aware, it is a long-established practice that committees are expected to report matters to the House before they can be considered by the Speaker. Speaker Milliken, in a ruling made on November 27, 2002, which can be found at pages 1949 and 1950 of the Debates, put it this way:

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

In the same ruling, he added:

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

Even the rulings of the chair of a committee may be made the subject of an appeal to the whole committee. The committee may, if it thinks appropriate, overturn such a ruling.

Today, I am being asked to decide, in the absence of a report from the committee whether, in this particular instance, the committee exceeded the limits of its powers to such an extent as to warrant an intervention from the Chair. As I see this case, the House referred the bill to the committee for study. The committee proceeded to study the bill, as has been described, and then the committee reported the bill back to the House without amendment. The report of the committee returning to us the bill is all this House has before it.

In other words, I cannot see how the Chair can reach into committee proceedings to somehow provide redress without a report to the House from the finance committee detailing particular grievances or describing a particular set of events. Accordingly, I cannot find sufficient evidence that the standing committee exceeded the limits of its mandate and powers in the manner in which it considered Bill C-45.

The Chair is fully aware that some members are frustrated with the way in which the proceedings took place in committee, particularly given that, as events unfolded there, they believe they were left without recourse. However much I might appreciate these frustrations, the fact remains that none of the actions of the Standing Committee on Finance have been reported to the House for its consideration. Therefore, in keeping with the long established practices of the House in that regard, the Chair is not in a position to delve into the matter further.

In conclusion, the Chair finds that the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-45 is properly before the House and, accordingly, that the bill can proceed to the next steps in the legislative process.

I thank members for their attention.

Report Stage Motions

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

Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of important points that will bear upon your ruling. I hope you did not take that too personally from the government House leader. It was a little bit of a procedural smack-down of your previous ruling on Bill C-38. I know that it was not meant personally, but boy, he did not appreciate your ruling before.

In terms of the disrepute of the House and using procedural games to do it, this comes from a government that prorogued Parliament to avoid a confidence vote and then lectures the House on how it holds Parliament in high regard.

The selection for debate my hon. friend spent so much of his time on was not our point at all. The point we were making was that, of course, you have the selection as to which motions come. Our entire premise, if he had been listening, was on the idea of what gets grouped together. I raised a very specific point with the member, with you and with the House to say that in the groupings last spring, many votes were put together that caused the members of Parliament to vote singly on multiple issues on which they may have had multiple opinions.

The example I used in my speech, which I know my hon. colleague would understand and agree with, was that a single vote cast on changing the language in the French text in the bill was also connected and became the same vote as the definition of a navigable water. Any member of Parliament from the government or the opposition who may have agreed with the first part of the vote and disagreed with the second was allowed to vote only once.

The point of the groupings is to allow members to vote freely and fairly. I know the government House leader has been very helpful, in his own eyes, in now grouping all the different amendments for you, Mr. Speaker. I know that he is often inconvenienced by the cost and the burdensome nature of democracy. However, I will remind him that receiving only 39% of the vote does not give the government somehow the mandate to run roughshod over our Parliament and our parliamentary procedure.

The evil the member talked about and quoted often, and this is important as you seek to group amendments, with respect to vexatious amendments, were the 471 amendments moved by the Reform Party against the Nisga'a treaty. This is now coming from many members who were in that movement and in that party who did not like the treaty and moved commas and semicolons and periods around to try to delay the work of the House.

There are many things Canadians can contemplate. However, the outright hypocrisy coming from Conservatives and former Reform members in saying that they do not like the rules that they themselves applied so vexatiously in the House of Commons in trying to deny the first modern-day treaty in Canadian history is passing strange.

I will end on this. Democracy is from time to time a complicated and difficult process. It can be a difficult system. That is hard for the Conservative government to contemplate, but it is a much better system than the other options available for governing ourselves.

It seems to me that when we gave examples that the groupings are important to allow members to vote freely and fairly, the government House leader chose to ignore all of those things. It is the Speaker's choice as to which ones are vexatious and inconvenient. I said that in my comments to the House. If they are vexatious, they should not be chosen and selected for votes. What I did say was that in a grouping of these amendments, it is important that members are able to vote freely.

It seems to me that the government helped make our point about the amendments, none of which have been moved. Many are serious and substantive amendments to improve, in this case, a 450-page piece of legislation. In the previous bill of some 425 pages, the government adopted none. Conservatives did not change a comma, a period or a semicolon or a single word of text. Somehow the government was able to create perfectly more than 900 pages of legislation without a single error or omission. It got it all right. We know that not to be true, because for Bill C-38, the first omnibus bill, which was moved in the spring, Conservatives are now having to make corrections in Bill C-45, some months later, before they have even had a chance to enact the legislation. Therefore, were they perfect? No.

Maybe from time to time the government may learn that slow and steady slide from feeling that they are somehow ordained with this perfection crosses into arrogance and is ultimately an allergy to Canadians. They want a government that is humble. They want a government that from time to time listens and does not believe that in all cases every piece of legislation it has written is perfect. It has already shown time and again that it writes bad legislation. Conservatives should use this process to make better their imperfect attempts at reforming Canadian law.

Mr. Speaker, this is a question about grouping, not a question about which motions you choose to select, on which my hon. colleague spent much of his time. If he had listened and understood this point of order, he would also agree that while messy and while cumbersome, as democracy can be, we must abide by this principle, whatever our political orientation, because that is what Canadians expect at the least.

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

Mr. Speaker, the decision that you will have to make regarding the upcoming treatment of Bill C-45 at report stage is a particularly important one, because your determination will largely settle whether the opposition can effectively make a farce of the procedures of the House and shut down the legislative process, or whether you will give actual meaning to the intent of the Standing Orders and allow the business of the country to be done in a meaningful and democratic fashion.

I will refresh everyone's memory of what we are talking about. We are talking about the interpretation of Standing Order 76(5), which relates to amendments at report stage to any legislation. In particular, we are now talking about the budget implementation bill. This Standing Order sets out the Speaker's power to select and combine amendments at this stage. It states in part, “The Speaker shall have the power to select or combine amendments or clauses to be proposed at the report stage...”. The opposition House leader is advising you, Mr. Speaker, to amend unilaterally this Standing Order to render it ineffective. That should not be the case.

If there is any doubt as to how this should be interpreted, a note was added by previous governments, not a Conservative government but a Liberal government, that reads as follows:

The Speaker will not normally select for consideration any motion previously ruled out of order in committee.... The Speaker will normally only select motions that were not or could not be presented in committee. A motion, previously defeated in committee, will only be selected if the Speaker judges it to be of such exceptional significance as to warrant a further consideration at the report stage. The Speaker will not normally select for separate debate a repetitive series of motions which are interrelated and, in making the selection, shall consider whether individual Members will be able to express their concerns during the debate on another motion.

The most important recent addition states:

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

We recall that there was some public comment after the ruling earlier this spring and the number of amendments allowed. Here I refer to comment by the actual individuals who were involved in the preparation of that section and the changes that were proposed to the Standing Orders. They expressed some disappointment at the ruling that was made and thought that the powers were there for the Speaker to prevent the abuse that we saw earlier this spring, when the House was tied up for many hours by hundreds of votes, none of which changed a single comma, all of which were clearly and evidently an abuse of the process and a massive cost to Canadians in terms of the operation of the House and an inconvenience to members who had other business to do for the purposes of this country.

I will point out that the Standing Orders and the powers in them have a history to them; they do not exist separately and apart. If we review O'Brien and Bosc, there is some reflection on this history at page 777, which states:

In 1955, the House amended its Standing Orders to reflect this practice.

That referred to a previous practice of concurrence in amendments from committee. As O'Brien and Bosc note:

It was agreed that amendments had to be presented to the House and that the motion for concurrence in the amendments had to be disposed of forthwith before the bill was ordered for debate at third reading at the next sitting of the House. The effect of these amendments to the Standing Orders was to eliminate what then constituted the equivalent of report stage. In 1968, the House undertook a thorough revision of its legislative process with the result that all bills, except for those based on supply or ways and means motions, were thenceforth to be referred to standing or special committees, and would not be reconsidered by a Committee of the Whole House. In addition, the House restored report stage [that was the trade-off] and empowered the Speaker to select and group amendments.

That was the management aspect of it.

Therefore, in restoring report stage, effectively, it was not done carte blanche, so that everything had to be considered. There was a recognition that there were some risks. That is why the Speaker was given powers to allow the House to continue to function, powers to limit an abuse through procedural measures and unnecessary, frivolous, vexatious or duplicative amendments.

O'Brien and Bosc go on to state:

In recommending that report stage be restored, the 1968 Special Committee on Procedure believed that stage essential in order to provide all Members of the House, and not merely members of the committee, with an opportunity to express their views on bills under consideration and to propose amendments, where appropriate. For all that, the intent of the Committee was not for this stage to become a repetition of committee stage.

I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that with the amendments we have seen on notice so far, nothing could be closer to an effort to replicate exactly what happened at committee, or could have happened at committee. That was clearly not the intent of establishing report stage.

Report stage was to allow for that rare, unique and relatively uncommon circumstance where an idea had not occurred to someone at committee but that here in the House some felt that an amendment was appropriate, novel and different and sought to bring it forward. However, there is nothing novel in the amendments that we see on notice. There is nothing innovative. There is nothing significantly different from what has been proposed or could have been proposed earlier.

Finally, I will go to the most recent change.

Most recently, in 2001, an additional paragraph was added to the above-mentioned note. This occurred in response to the flooding of the notice paper with hundreds of amendments to certain controversial bills. The new text emphasized that the Speaker would not select motions that were “repetitive, frivolous, vexatious or serve only to prolong debate unnecessarily”. Those are overwhelmingly the amendments that we see on the order paper today. The new provision was designed to respond to the evil that was already occurring and undermining the process of the House.

When changes are made, they are generally responding to a problem that exists. Those new powers exist to deal with that. Mr. Speaker, I submit that they should be exercised by you.

When we reflect on what has happened already in the committee proceedings on the budgetary policy of the government, including ways and means Motion No. 7, the first budget implementation bill, Bill C-38, as well as the present legislation, there have already been almost 4,600 votes on the government's budgetary policy.

How much has changed as a result of all of those votes and amendments to what has been proposed by the government? Not one comma, not one word. That is the clearest evidence that the current amendments represent an abuse of process only designed to try to delay and be vexatious and prolong matters.

My submissions are centred on five points.

First, the clause deletion motions are a repetition of committee proceedings and merely seek to prolong report stage proceedings and, therefore, should not be selected.

Second, in the alternative, if the clause deletion motions are selected, they should be grouped in a manner that recognizes the anticipated will of the House.

Third, the other amendments from the New Democrats and Liberals should not be selected because they were presented at committee, or could have been presented at committee.

Fourth, some of the motions by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands should not be selected on the grounds that they were presented at committee or are similar to amendments dealt with at committee, or that they infringe on the financial prerogative of the Crown.

Fifth, the other report stage amendments from the independent members of Parliament must be grouped in a way that prevents the entire House from being detained in a marathon of votes originated at the whim of, effectively, a single member of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, as with any bill pending at report stage, you are required to make certain decisions under, among other provisions, Standing Order 76.1(5). Again, this is the one I read earlier about your having the power to select or combine amendments or clauses to be proposed at report stage.

It is in this spirit that I do tender this advice given that the government is scheduling that report stage of Bill C-45 will start tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate that you have a lot to consider today and this evening. I hope you do not have any plans.

Given the duplicated notices from multiple members of each of the two recognized caucuses, for ease of reference, I will refer to those from the members for Winnipeg North, Westmount—Ville-Marie, and Kings—Hants as the Liberal motions, and those from the members for Parkdale—High Park, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Brossard—La Prairie and Hamilton East—Stoney Creek as the NDP motions.

I would say that the motions to delete clauses are not an effort to amend the bill, but merely repeat what we saw at committee stage. The effect of the adoption of all of the proposed motions to delete clauses would effectively be to eviscerate the bill.

On October 30, the House adopted Bill C-45 at second reading, thereby agreeing to its principle. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance reported the bill without amendment to the House on November 26, after consideration of each and every clause.

It may be justifiable in a minority Parliament for the Chair to accept any questions for the House to decide, because it is difficult to predict the intentions of the majority of members. This is not the case in a majority Parliament in general. There is no reason to substantiate an assumption that the House would use report stage to reverse itself in the decision it took at second reading of Bill C-45. In fact, the course of the almost 4,600 votes so far on the budgetary policy of the government established this quite clearly. I do not think anyone is in any suspense as to the outcome of the number of votes that we have. It is only a suspenseful question of how long the endurance test will be of the votes we will put to the House.

I submit that the report stage motions to delete the preponderance of the clauses in the bill effectively seek not only to reverse the outcome of the second reading vote on the bill, but also constitute a repetition of committee stage of the bill. As I said, that is particularly the case since each clause did carry separately in the clause-by-clause votes.

The second paragraph of the note that is in our Standing Orders accompanying Standing Order 76.1(5) with respect to the Speaker's power to select amendments states in part, “It is not meant to be a reconsideration of the committee stage of a bill”. I repeat that: report stage is not to be a repeat of the consideration that occurred at committee.

On February 27, 2001 the House added this paragraph to the note accompanying Standing Order 76.1(5):

For greater clarity, the Speaker will not select for debate a motion or series of motions of a repetitive, frivolous or vexatious nature or of a nature that would serve merely to prolong unnecessarily proceedings....

It then continues on about the British rules.

I read to the House the excerpt from O'Brien and Bosc about the circumstances where there was an abuse with the flooding of amendments. Therefore, we have seen it happen before. We have seen that Parliament has decided that the kind of abuse that occurred in the past should not be allowed to be repeated and, hence, it changed our Standing Orders to reflect that such abuse should not be permitted and that you, Mr. Speaker, have the power to prevent it and to prevent the undue delay.

In the present case we have again seen the notice paper flooded. Today's notice paper lists some 1,662 report stage motions respecting Bill C-45. I am not a betting man, but I am willing to bet anyone in the House that I do not foresee any of them passing.

We know that most of the motions have already been considered at committee. We know that the House has approved overwhelmingly the budget, the budgetary policy of the House and this particular legislation at second reading. By breaking these out into multiple deletion clauses and other frivolous and vexatious amendments, nothing is being achieved but a waste of time, resources and the discrediting of our parliamentary system.

I respectfully submit that the Liberal and NDP report stage motions taken as a whole simply constitute an attempt to reverse the decision of the House at second reading of the bill, but to do so in ultra-slow motion. These amendments would be a reconsideration of committee stage and are of a nature that will merely serve to prolong unnecessarily the proceedings at report stage. Ultimately, if a member seeks to oppose the entirety or the preponderance of a piece of legislation, that member's recourse should lie in voting against the motion on concurrence in the bill in report stage, not in detaining the House through round-the-clock voting.

While your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on June 11, 2012 on Bill C-38 held that clause deletion motions have always been found to be in order, and it must also be noted to have been selected at report stage, I argue that this case can be distinguished. In the present case we are dealing with a second bill to implement provisions of a budget tabled in Parliament. Therefore these clause deletion motions should not find favour under the vigorous exercise contemplated by Speaker Milliken.

I will point out that in the alternative, if selected, certainly these clause deletion motions need to be grouped in an efficient manner. Should you decline to accept my advice, Mr. Speaker, and choose to select those clause deletion motions, I would urge that you use your authority and combine and group them in a fashion that puts them to the House in a sensible and efficient fashion.

I propose that the clause deletions, should they be selected against my advice, be grouped for voting purposes into 10 subsets of economic policy. Under this approach the House would have 10 separate votes on the issue of whether to remove from Bill C-45 the government's proposals in these areas of economic policy:

First, taxation measures, those being any motions to delete clause 1 or clauses in part 1 of the bill.

Second, financial sector measures, those being any motions to delete clauses in divisions 1 and 3 of part 4.

Third, transportation and border measures, those being any motions to delete clauses in divisions 2, 5, 12, 16, 18 and 20 of part 4 of the bill.

Fourth, resource development provisions, those being any motions to delete clauses in divisions 4 and 21 of part 4.

Fifth, aboriginal land designation provisions, those being any motions to delete clauses in division 8 of part 4.

Sixth, labour items, those being any motions to delete clauses in divisions 10 and 11 of part 4.

Seventh, amendments to the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act, those being any motions to delete clauses in division 13 of part 4.

Eighth, measures related to employment insurance, those being any motions to delete clauses in divisions 15 and 22 of part 4.

Ninth, agricultural items, those being any motions to delete clauses in division 19 of part 4.

Tenth, public sector pension reforms, those being any motions to delete clauses in division 23 of part 4.

This would allow for a broad range of votes on a broad range of topics where the opposition, clearly, is seeking to delete the proposals of the government. It would do so in a fashion that would allow that expression to be made. It would allow them to state, for the record, that they disagree with these proposals by the government. At the same time, they would not be establishing an excessive number of votes to get that point across here in the House.

The committee is, in fact, really the best venue for other NDP and Liberal motions. I understand that each of the report stage motions by the New Democrats and Liberals, which propose to make amendments to the clauses of Bill C-45, were put before the finance committee.

As for the 1,000 report stage motions from the Liberals seeking to add bodies of water to schedule 2 of the bill, I would observe that the committee dealt with a similar number of amendments at the committee level.

Since these motions were first published only this morning, I have not yet had an opportunity to determine whether they are exactly the same bodies of water proposed for inclusion at committee. On this point, I will leave my argument that generally, these motions were either dealt with at committee or could have been proposed there, as they are very similar to what was proposed there.

One additional point I would make about any motions to amend schedule 2 of the bill is on NDP amendment 72, which the finance committee considered and defeated, which I believe answers any further reference to adding bodies of water. That amendment sought to add:

All navigable waters situated in Canada and included in the Atlantic Ocean drainage basin, the Hudson Bay drainage basin, the Arctic Ocean drainage basin, the Pacific Ocean drainage basin or the Gulf of Mexico drainage basin.

In short, any water body not already listed in the schedule would have been addressed by that amendment.

Turning to the Green Party leader, I would suggest that some of her amendments should not be selected. Several of the motions by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands are the same, either in whole or in part, as those presented at committee.

Therefore, I submit that the following report stage motions proposed by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands should not be selected: Motion No. 28, which is the same as Liberal amendment 23; Motion No. 29, which is the same as Liberal amendment 24; Motion No. 74, which is the same as Liberal amendment 64; Motions Nos. 411 to 413 and 424 to 432, which are collectively the same as Liberal amendment 243; Motion No. 434, which is the same as Liberal amendment 249; Motion No. 436, which is the same as Liberal amendment 250; Motions Nos. 439 to 442 and 445, collectively, which are the same, in part, as Liberal amendment 252; and finally, Motion No. 463, which is the same as Liberal amendment 263.

Others are similar in nature to amendments considered at committee. I would argue that the issue was generally considered by the committee. Therefore, report stage motions should not be selected. This would apply to Motion No. 389, which covered ground similar to NDP amendment 21; Motion No. 409, which covered ground similar to Liberal amendment 240 and NDP amendment 223; Motion No. 440, which covered ground similar to Liberal amendment 253; Motion No. 441, which covered ground similar to Liberal amendment 252 and NDP amendment 31; and Motion No. 458, which covered ground similar to Liberal amendment 257 and NDP amendment 32.

There is also an additional concern raised by some amendments that require a royal recommendation. I have been advised that officials in the Privy Council Office note that at least two of the motions by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands would require a royal recommendation.

Motion No. 381 would increase the government's liabilities in respect of refunds for employment insurance premiums to small business for 2012-13, which expands the provisions in the bill for such refunds for 2011. By adding two additional years, this motion alters the terms and conditions of the original royal recommendation attached to Bill C-45 respecting the provision for such refunds for 2011.

Motion No. 382 also increases spending in a manner that is not currently authorized. The royal recommendation attached to Bill C-45 respecting this provision provides a limit of $1,000 on the refund of premiums, which this motion is proposing to increase to $2,000.

As a result, this would go beyond the terms and conditions of the original royal recommendation. Therefore, a new royal recommendation would be required.

Officials are reviewing the newest amendments published in this morning's notice. If I obtain further information on items that I believe will require a royal recommendation, I will be sure to send those submissions or provide them to you, Mr. Speaker, through this House.

The independent member's motions are an interesting question. They require some attention, because the independent member does not sit on committee. However, they should not be dealt with in such a manner that they represent, effectively, a harassment of the balance of the House. Compared to the several hundred amendments proposed by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands in June, on Bill C-38, her proposals as of today's date are slightly less unreasonable. However, the fact remains that the rights of individual members of Parliament must be balanced with the ability of the majority of the House to dispatch its business with some reasonable, practical speed. Allowing a single member of Parliament to hold the House hostage in a voting marathon is simply not reasonable.

I propose the following arrangement, which could, in future, extend to other government bills.

Report stage motions submitted by a member of Parliament who is not part of a recognized party shall be selected in the manner provided for by our rules. The selected motions may be grouped for debate in the usual fashion. Subject to the next point, the voting patterns for the motions would be set in the usual manner, as required by the ordinary practices of considering legislative amendments. However, one amendment per independent member of Parliament would be chosen to be a test vote. The voting pattern for the rest of that independent member's motions would only be implemented if the test motion were adopted. A rejection of the test motion would be inferred as a rejection of all that member's proposals. Therefore, the balance of the independent member's motions would not be put to the House.

In summary, any ordinary person familiar with parliamentary process, in even a passing way, would agree that more than 1,600 amendments are an abuse of process. Most should not be selected. In summary, this member's proposals are collectively a repetition of the committee stage and only seek to prolong report stage proceedings unnecessarily, particularly through the round-the-clock voting that would result.

There is no evidence that the House would willingly agree to be subjected to this. In fact, the history of how our rules have changed and the Speaker's rulings since 1968 confirm this. The Speaker's power to select amendments is clearly designed to prevent that abuse from happening. Mr. Speaker, the note that accompanies Standing Order 76.1(5) is a further clear articulation and reinforcement of the notion that part of one's obligation as Speaker is to protect not just the rights of the minority or an individual member; it is also to protect the rights of all members of Parliament not to see this place brought to discredit through procedures that are entirely frivolous, vexatious, repetitious, designed to delay and certainly designed to inconvenience all members of Parliament to an extraordinary extent.

I submit that the report stage motions, taken as a whole, run counter both to the spirit and the letter of the rules that govern our proceedings. Therefore, I recommend that most of the report stage motions on notice should not be selected and that the balance should be grouped in the manner I have proposed.

Finally, I point out, Mr. Speaker, your ruling in the spring, even though it was not seen as sufficiently aggressive in some fashion and was not seen as efficient as some would have liked in terms of respecting the ability of this House to continue to function. You clearly said, with respect to the 871 motions placed on the notice paper, the following:

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

Mr. Speaker, I have certainly given you a proposal that I think falls squarely within the context of what you established in your spring ruling. Here we see that the effort to be frivolous and vexatious has come close to, and has perhaps by now more than doubled, the effort to do so in the spring. The result, I am quite confident, will be the same in terms of the substantive outcome of those amendments. I invite you to ensure that the processes of this House are managed in such a fashion that our proceedings are not brought into discredit and are not made into a farce. Rather, they can operate in a fashion that allows views to be expressed but that also allows the nation's business to be done.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order as to the fundamental nature of the way the House functions and the way that you, Mr. Speaker, allow that smooth processing function to go on. My point of order is specific to Bill C-45, which the House now has before it.

I am rising on a point of order that is indirectly related to Bill C-45 insofar as I am hoping to influence your decision-making on the so-called grouping of report stage motions, which the House will receive tomorrow morning as debate begins at that stage of the bill. I will be asking you to allow for a recorded division on each motion that you select for debate, rather than grouping many of them together and having a single vote applied to more than one distinct question moved by various members of the House. Essentially, I will be making the argument that it is not for the Speaker to limit the ability of MPs to make distinct choices on how to vote on distinct questions.

For Canadians watching at home who are not familiar with our somewhat antiquated and perhaps even arcane practices, it may seem odd that I even have to make this request. I suspect that most Canadians would intuitively think that the Speaker could not have the power, and should not have the power, to require MPs to choose a single vote on multiple distinct questions. I do not think so either and I am going to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to avoid doing so for the report stage of Bill C-45 as well as to set the precedent for how Speakers deal with this matter in the future.

As you well know, Mr. Speaker, you, like your predecessors, are in the habit of grouping motions in amendment at report stage for debate and voting when there is a large number of motions on the notice paper. That has often been the case with omnibus bills, such as C-45 and C-38, which the House studied last spring, by their very nature.

The government decided to put hundreds of clauses in a single bill, and the House and its members are being forced to study them as a single block. That is their choice, not ours, and I am sure it is not your choice either.

I will quote directly from your explanation, Mr. Speaker, of the report stage groupings of Bill C-38, which took place on June 11 of this year. Your explanation to the House was as follows:

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

While I am now raising an objection to this practice, Mr. Speaker, I know that you were simply following what has been done by the House and others on such occasions. However, when I looked into the written explanation for this practice, the practice that is written in our guidelines and practices for this place, I was somewhat surprised to find very little in the way of direct guidance for you as Speaker. In fact, what I found was very simply a passage in the Annotated Standing Orders of the House of Commons, on page 272 under Standing Order 76.1(5). To be clear, this is not the Standing Order itself, but rather, the explanation of it. All that is said is the following:

The Speaker determines the order in which the motions will be called and the effect of one vote on the others (for example, if the vote on one motion can be applied to another motion). The purpose of the voting scheme is to avoid the House having to vote twice on the same issue.

That is very clear. Even in this annotation to our Standing Orders, the intention of those groupings is to avoid having the House vote twice on the same issue.

There is also a similar explanation in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, which I will, from this point on, refer to as O'Brien and Bosc. On page 784, it states:

—the Speaker...also decides on how they will be grouped for voting, that is, the Speaker determines the order in which the motions in amendment will be called and the effect of one vote on the others. The purpose of the voting scheme is to obviate any requirement for two or more votes on the same issue.

It is pretty clear in its intention and its practice. To avoid voting more than once on the same thing is essential for the House.

Here is the problem. The groupings that you, Mr. Speaker, created for the government's last large omnibus bill were not, in my view, limited to preventing multiple votes on the same issues. Groupings were made to have only one vote applied to completely different clauses in the bill, each of which constituted a separate and distinct issue for the House to address, which is in fact our guideline in our practices, not a suggestion but an actual strict rule and guideline.

It is the government, with the help of its lawyers in the Department of Justice, that has told the House that it deemed each of the clauses to be distinct issues, not us in the opposition. If they were the same issue, they would be in the same clause.

I submit that in the ongoing effort to review and improve the living tree of our procedures and practices, saving MPs from voting on the same issue is not what Speakers have been doing during the report stage groupings. It seems to me that they have been treating motions at report stage as a nuisance and one that should be severely limited, rather than as what they are, as was referenced in the practices before.

I find this somewhat disturbing. If these motions are legitimate questions that the House is meant to deal with at report stage, the final stage, surely MPs should have a choice on how to vote on them. As it stands, MPs are forced to make one single vote on a multitude, sometimes dozens, of individual questions, which are separate in their concepts and ideas.

A clear example of this practice comes again from your report stage ruling on Bill C-38 from June 11 of this year. Motion No. 143 is a motion I know you, Mr. Speaker, remember well. It read that Bill C-38 would be amended by defeating clause 68, good old clause 68. In your ruling, Mr. Speaker, MPs were told that with regard to Motion No. 143, the choice to vote yea or nay on that question would apply to 47 other individual questions, which MPs had moved and you, as Speaker, had selected for debate in the House.

Those questions were: clauses 144 to 146, 149, 151 to 153, 156, 158, 170, 172, 174, 175, 177, 179, 194, 208, 201, 211, 213, 215 and 217, 222 to 224, 226, and 228 to 230, and 232 to 249.

It is impossible for one person, even a person as wise as the Speaker of the House of Commons, to be sure that all MPs share the same opinion on each of these 48 motions. The Speaker may be reasonably sure with respect to the members who moved the motions, and perhaps, by extension, the other members of their party, but in the case of members of other parties or independent members, that assumption cannot be made with the same degree of certainty.

The people watching these debates at home or in the gallery may get the impression that we are entering a dark maze known to some as the Ottawa bubble. In the interest of clarity, I will refer to the example given previously and provide a useful example of the possible repercussions of vote grouping.

In your grouping, Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 143 moved to delete a clause that makes a correction to the simple heading in the French version of an existing law. That is all it did. It seems to me that some members may not want to oppose that change and would therefore tend to vote against the motion. However, that choice applies automatically to Motion No. 144, a completely different idea and concept. It asked to delete clause 69 of Bill C-38. Clause 69 changed the definition of a navigable water and penalty under the act in question, which the same member could easily wish to support.

Just to be clear, we voted once in the groupings that were made by your Chair. One motion on changing the heading in a French version of the bill was also connected to the very definition of a navigable water. It is clear and obvious that a member of Parliament may have two different opinions on those ideas, yet was only being permitted to vote once. That goes against the rules and practices of the House.

As a result of those groupings and nothing else, I am afraid to say, MPs were forced to make a single choice, yea or nay, despite the fact that they would be voting against their conscience no matter which way they voted. It puts members of Parliament who try to represent their constituents into an impossible bind. Whichever way they vote, they end up voting against their conscience. That is not and should not be permissible.

I believe, and I hope you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that the man or woman in your chair should not make a decision that puts any member in a position where they are forced to make such an impossible choice.

In that way, the question of MPs voting against their conscience is one that has been raised before. In fact, the House recently spent a day debating an opposition motion that reminded us all of what the current Prime Minister had to say on a similar matter when he was the one rallying against the anti-democratic agenda of the then Liberal Canadian government, rather than driving the agenda as he does today.

In the Prime Minister's point of order of March 25, 1994, and this quote has become quite familiar in this hall, he said:

—in the interest of democracy...How can members represent their constituents on these various [ideas] when they are forced to vote in a block on such legislation and on such concerns?...We can agree with some of the measures but oppose others.

The Prime Minister was right then. He is in fact wrong now to create these omnibus bills. However, you, as the Speaker, are obligated to maintain the ability of members to vote their conscience.

You will know, Mr. Speaker, that at the time the Prime Minister was objecting to the very existence of omnibus bills, an objection he no longer seems to hold because he has created many and some of which are large.

Speaker Parent then ruled against the point of order, as many others have in similar circumstances, because the objection was being made to the vote at second reading or another vote on the general progress of the bill.

I will quote from Speaker Parent's ruling from April 11, 1994, which was in direct response to the current Prime Minister. He stated:

However, it is the view of the Chair that in the adoption of a second reading motion the House gives approval in principle to a bill...then moves on to the consideration of its specific provisions in subsequent stages.

This is the stage we are at right now.

He continues “Hence, while I cannot accept the hon. member's request to divide or set aside Bill C-17”, which was an omnibus bill by the Liberal government, “I can suggest to him and to other members that should they so wish they may propose amendments to the bill in committee or at report stage and in so doing have an opportunity to express their views and vote on the specific sections of the bill”.

Therefore, in Speaker Parent's ruling, when ruling against the current Prime Minister in his effort to throw out the omnibus bill altogether, because it represented an effort to have MPs vote at cross-purposes to their conscience, he said that there was an opportunity that would come later, at report stage, in which amendments could be moved with respect to those specific sections of the bill and then not be encumbered by it anymore.

This stiff rejection of our current Prime Minister's concern is explained in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms, sixth edition, at page 194, citation 634, which states:

—the practice of using one bill to demand one decision on a number of quite different, although related subjects, while a matter of concern, is an issue on which the Speaker will not intervene....

That is correct. That is the ruling on omnibus bills and the nature of omnibus bills. We are talking about something quite different now and much more nefarious.

Mr. Speaker, at this point in my speech, I would like to emphasize a fact that may seem obvious to you. I am not arguing for or against the validity or even the value of omnibus bills. That is not my point.

You and your predecessors have clearly decided that we would have to deal with such bills, for better or worse. The issue I am raising today is simply the individual right of a member of Parliament to vote according to his or her conscience on issues before the House.

Given the Prime Minister's previous objection to a single vote on a bill that covers a number of issues, I hope that he will support my position on the fact that a single vote on several distinct elements of a bill forces members to vote against their conscience.

Even if the Prime Minister does not agree with my submission, and no longer agrees with himself on this point, there have been many rulings that point out the importance of the rights of members to vote on diverse components of a bill, which are its individual clauses at committee and now report stage.

In his ruling of May 11, 1977, Speaker Jerome stated:

I think that an hon. member of this House ought to have the right to compel the House to vote on each separate question.

He went on in the same ruling of that year to say:

—a member ought to be able, if he wishes to attempt through motions to delete under Standing Order 75(5) to isolate those sections which he feels ought not to be amended or that ought to be voted upon separately, without offending the principle of the bill.

That is exactly what will happen at report stage on this bill.

Finally, in that same ruling:

I think that would give the hon. member and other hon. members an opportunity that they should enjoy, to put their position on the record, which I think ought to be known, and also to require others in the House to vote in respect of that position....where a bill is presented...which contains amendments to several different areas of the law although all connected to criminal law, a member ought to be able to use some procedure at some stage of the bill to cause the House to make separate decisions on those very subject matters.

In his decision of June 8, 1988, Speaker Fraser stated that members have the ancient privilege of voting on each separate proposition before the House. It is indeed an ancient privilege and one that we, all the other members of this institution and myself, must jealously guard.

The problem is that the grouping of report stage motions presumes that one can predict the intentions of members with respect to specific matters that have already been identified as being legitimate and substantive. Perhaps this may seem intuitive, but I would like to say that only in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances should someone be authorized to presume how members will vote on a motion before the House.

Given that omnibus bills have been routinely introduced by this government, these are not exceptional circumstances.

Speaker Milliken, your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, made this point clear when he was addressing the use of Standing Order 56.1 to presume the outcome of a vote in the House, and he said:

The effect of the motion adopted pursuant to Standing Order 56.1 was to predetermine the results of all the votes following the first recorded division. It is clear to the Chair that this application of the standing order goes well beyond the original intent, that is, for the presentation of routine motions as defined in Standing Order 56.1.(1)(b).

The standing order has never been used as a substitute for decisions which the House ought itself to make on substantive matters.

It cannot be replaced. There is no rule in the House that allows us to circumvent the right of any hon. member to have a clear and concise vote on individual subject matters. I will continue with the quote:

In the meantime, based on close examination of past precedents and the most recent use of Standing Order 56.1 as a tool to bypass the decision making functions of the House, I must advise the House that the motion adopted on June 12, 2001, will not be regarded as a precedent. I would urge all hon. members to be vigilant about the use of this mechanism for the Chair certainly intends to be watchful.

The regrouping of report stage amendments for the purpose of voting presumes the very same thing: how MPs will wish to vote on a question before the House. This is a right that the Speaker made very clear should be protected with vigilance.

The introduction to chapter 12 of O'Brien and Bosc sums up very well the current reality of majority governments. On page 527, there is a quote from Parliaments in the Modern World, by parliamentary expert Philip Laundy: “The principle underlying parliamentary procedure is that the minority should have its say and the majority should have its way.”

In my opinion, this means that, in a majority Parliament, the government has the right to get through its legislative agenda, and the opposition has the right to slow passage of legislation in a reasonable manner.

Having a distinct vote on each question put forward by MPs that is clear, distinct and admissible, surely falls under the umbrella of what should be considered reasonable.

In fact, the truth is that the government is directly responsible for any delay that it perceives to be unnecessary in this regard. In this and all pieces of legislation, the government decides how many clauses it wishes to include. This was not a choice by the opposition. This was not a choice by you as Speaker.

The government drafted this massive bill with so many clauses contained. In all this, in all pieces of legislation, the government chose which to include. In Bill C-45 there are now 516 separate clauses, each of which contains a separate legislative change, either to amend or eliminate entirely an existing law or to create a new one. Each is a distinct issue that must be dealt with on a distinct and individual basis.

When MPs move to delete that clause, it is an altogether different question than moving to delete another clause entirely. If it were not, they would be the same clause in the first place.

For the record, I am in full support of the Speaker's right to not select particular motions for the House to deal with at report stage. Motions that are vexatious or clearly dilatory, such as moving to turn a comma into a semicolon, should not be selected because it is a waste of Parliament's time. However, deleting individual clauses of a bill is a right that MPs can, and must be able to, exercise. To speak plainly, they are not a waste of time. Casting a distinct vote on each one is an ancient right of which all MPs should be able to avail themselves and it must be protected by your office, Mr. Speaker.

Deleting a clause of the bill is debatable and therefore a substantive motion. O'Brien and Bosc remind us, on page 782:

Since motions in amendment at report stage are open to debate, they fall into the category of substantive motions...

There is no question there. The effort to delete a clause is a substantive motion. Surely, MPs should be making a decision on these substantive motions individually, rather than as a group.

In conclusion, I wish to present my arguments. Although I may be giving the impression of wanting to ascribe to you the responsibility for this very serious problem, I am keenly aware of the fact that you are following what has been done by previous speakers in such matters. I do not want Canadians who are watching to believe that this is a problem specific to your tenure as Speaker of the House of Commons.

In fact, I know that you believe that the Speaker should not influence the manner in which the House of Commons deals with an omnibus bill such as Bill C-45.

On June 11, in a ruling on a point of order questioning the legitimacy of this type of bill, Mr. Speaker, you cited Speaker Fraser's ruling of June 8, 1988, on page 16257 of Debates, saying:

Until the House adopts specific rules relating to omnibus Bills, the Chair's role is very limited and the Speaker should remain on the sidelines as debate proceeds and the House resolves the issue.

I submit that the practice of forcing MPs to make a single vote on multiple individual questions is not written in the rules of the House, by which you as Speaker are bound. Rather it is a practice followed simply because that is the way it has been done before. However, this clearly is not a justification for the ruling.

In my view, the government's use of omnibus bills, with many hundreds of clauses, sets the table for these groupings. However, given the government, and only the government is responsible, I believe that the Speaker should allow the omnibus nature of their initiative manifest itself in all aspects of the process, including the opposition's right to use the tools of the House to delay, however temporarily, the passage of the bill.

You, Mr. Speaker, have the power to right this wrong and to unburden members of this chamber from making a single choice on multiple questions. I am asking you to exercise that power when you rule on the process for the House to follow at report stage on Bill C-45.

Committees of the House

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to briefly supplement the initial response of the hon. government House leader to the point of order raised yesterday by the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition on proceedings of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-45.

To be clear about the October 31 motion of the finance committee, which the four New Democrats on the committee voted for, for the record, the chair of that committee was asked in paragraph (a) to write to his counterparts on 10 other standing committees “inviting those Standing Committees to consider the subject-matter” on certain provisions of Bill C-45. They were invited to take up a subject matter study, on which the NDP House leader himself admitted yesterday, “any committee has the right to initiate a study on the subject matter that applies to their policy area, including on the elements of Bill C-45”.

Nonetheless, it remained up to those 10 other committees as to how they would respond to the finance committee's invitation. As I understand it, to a committee, they agreed to consider the relevant subject matter of this budget implementation bill. Indeed, pages 1004 and 1005 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, state:

The standing committees may themselves initiate, without first obtaining the prior approval of the House, any study they feel it advisable to undertake, insofar as it falls within the mandate provided to them by the Standing Orders.

Circumstances of a wide variety inform the choices of committees for studies, whether they be legal or procedural in nature or have a political impetus behind them or, in this case, an invitation letter from a fellow committee. Meanwhile, in paragraph (b), the other committees were “requested to convey recommendations, including any suggested amendments...in a letter...”.

The other committees were not instructed to make a report to the finance committee, as the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley suggested yesterday. They did, however, each agree to correspond back to the finance committee chair with their views on the subject matter studied. That the other committees have not reported to the House on these studies is not a matter of concern for a point of order in the chamber.

I will continue reading the passage from O'Brien and Bosc at page 1005, which states:

The committees then undertake to define the nature and scope of the study, to determine how much time they will devote to it and whether or not they will report their observations and recommendations to the House.

As the hon. government House leader pointed out yesterday, the finance committee did not cede any of its authority with respect to Bill C-45 and the finance committee retained the authority to vote on all proposed amendments before the bill was ever reported back to the House. There was certainly no undue delegation of authority here.

Finally, he pointed out that this was not a novel practice. It may be of benefit to point out, for example, the case of Bill C-50, the Budget Implementation Act, 2008, in the second session of the 39th Parliament. As part of its study of that bill, the finance committee adopted a motion to ask the citizenship and immigration committee to consider the subject matter of a portion of it. The immigration committee accepted the invitation and later agreed to a letter in reply to the finance committee, even agreeing to append a dissenting opinion to that letter.

In closing, while it may be infrequent for one committee to write to another committee inviting it to undertake a study within its area of competence and to reply with suggestions, it is not out of order.

Standing Committee on Finance

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the point of order raised by the member for Kings—Hants.

As I understand his complaint, he is concerned about the meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance on Wednesday evening, particularly that all of the amendments he tabled for the committee's consideration were voted on. He says that the greatest abuse he has ever seen in the House of Commons was that the House of Commons actually considered his amendments. That is what he considers the greatest abuse that has ever happened here in his lengthy career in the past 15 years. His point of order flows from a motion adopted by the finance committee on October 31 respecting proceedings on Bill C-45 and the implementation of that motion last week at committee.

It is a foundational principle around here that committees are masters of their own proceedings. That is articulated in our procedural literature such as can be found at page 1047 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice second edition, and citation 760(3) of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms sixth edition.

While citation 822 of Beauchesne's says, “Procedural difficulties which arise in committees ought to be settled in the committee and not in the House”, I do want to give a quick recap of events as I understand them since you, Mr. Speaker, have now been asked to make a ruling, even though I do believe the hon. member is in the wrong place when he asks for a ruling to be made.

The committee's meeting Wednesday was convened with a notice of meeting which said that the committee would give the bill “clause-by-clause consideration”.

The October 31 motion, adopted by the committee in a nine to one vote, said that, if clause by clause consideration had not concluded by 11:15 p.m. on November 21, the chair was to put “each and every question necessary to dispose of clause-by-clause consideration” of the bill.

I understand that the chair of finance committee found himself, during the committee's proceedings that day, explaining what would happen to the balance of the 3,072, or so, amendments that were tabled if the clock struck midnight before the committee's work was done. I further understand that he ruled that after midnight no amendments would be voted on by the committee.

Arising from that, I am told that the hon. member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca challenged that viewpoint. These were his arguments, as I understand them.

First, that the committee meeting was convened to deal with “clause-by-clause consideration”, which nonetheless allowed for amendments to be considered. Yet, apparently at midnight, the words “clause-by-clause consideration” excluded the consideration of amendments, which seemed to be a logical inconsistency.

I will add here a quotation from page 761 of O'Brien and Bosc:

Once the witnesses have been heard, the committee proceeds to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. It is during this phase of the committee's deliberations that members may propose amendments to the bill.

We see similar advice at page 997.

The member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca argued that the words “each and every question” included every one of the amendments that had been duly filed with the committee clerk. This is sensible. These are questions that need to be dealt with for the bill to be dealt with. Then he observed that when the House adopts a time allocation motion, it uses similar phrasing about “every question necessary for the disposal of the stage” being “put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment”.

Mr. Speaker, when the time allotted ends on those House proceedings, you, as the Speaker, still put every selected report stage motion to the House. Bill C-38 was offered as an example when 15 motions had been moved at the time report stage debate was interrupted and yet the House voted on all of the selected report stage motions, not just the 15 that had already been dealt with at that point. The member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca argued that the same logic should apply to committee proceedings. I certainly agree.

In summary, he argued that the committee's motion of October 31 should not be interpreted in a manner more restrictive than how the same words would be interpreted here in the House.

Committees are indeed different than the House but those differences are generally geared in the other direction, toward allowing greater participation in the committee's business not less, and that is the point that the hon. member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca argued. For example, motions at committee do not require seconders. The previous question cannot be moved. And, unless a committee orders, there are no limits on the length or number of speeches that one can make.

In any event, I gather that the hon. member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca appealed the chair's ruling and by a vote of nine to one, with only the hon. member for Kings—Hants disagreeing, the committee overturned the chair's ruling.

I want to pause briefly here to describe the bizarre turn of events where the Liberal finance critic tabled approximately 3,000 amendments at committee and then sought to create a procedural environment where the vast majority of those amendments might never have been considered at committee. I have heard that the finance committee chair pointed out this perplexing position on Wednesday evening. It is little wonder to me that the Liberals find that Canadians sent them to that corner over there if they pursue cynical political stunts like that. It is indeed Kafkaesque where an injustice is actually having the amendments one has proposed considered. That is the Kafkaesque world of the member for Kings—Hants.

I want to turn to what O'Brien and Bosc has to say about committees' freedom to be masters of their own proceedings. On page 1047 it says:

The concept refers to the freedom committees normally have to organize their work as they see fit and the option they have of defining, on their own, certain rules of procedure that facilitate their proceedings.

That quote actually applies appropriately to the earlier point of order we also argued.

On the next page we see that:

...committees may adopt procedural rules to govern their proceedings, but only to the extent the House does not prescribe anything specific.

I do not believe that the hon. member for Kings--Hants has cited any such order of the House in support of his case. It should also be noted that the member has also failed to present any evidence of procedural impropriety at the committee level.

The finance committee did adopt procedural rules on October 31 when it adopted a comprehensive motion related to proceedings on Bill C-45, including time spent on clause by clause consideration, as well as invitations to 10 other standing committees to study the subject matter of parts of the bill.

Pages 997 and 998 of O'Brien and Bosc speak to this. It says:

The period of time devoted to the consideration of the bill is determined by the committee but it can be circumscribed or restricted by various factors: the obligation to report the bill within a prescribed time, pursuant to a special order of the House or to a time allocation motion, or due to limits the committee has placed upon itself by adopting motions to that effect. In the latter case, it may be a question of limiting the overall time the committee will spend on the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, the time allocated for debate on each clause and amendment, the time allocated for each intervention by members on the matters broached by the committee, or a combination of any of these.

The motion adopted by the committee accords with the scope of what the committee is entirely able to do.

Then, of course, we have the appeal of the hon. member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca. Page 1049 of O'Brien and Bosc advises that, “Decisions by the Chair are not debatable. They can, however, be appealed to the full committee”. That is worth repeating. Appeals lie with the committee, not with the House. Therefore, I put it to you simply, Mr. Speaker, that the member for Kings--Hants is in the wrong place today asking you to rule on this.

O'Brien and Bosc does go on to add that, ”The overturning of a ruling is not considered a matter of confidence in the Chair”.

In this case, we have a committee, which by a nine to one majority voted for an interpretation of the October 31 motion, which is perfectly intelligible and sensible, and, I would argue, correct, from the words and the intent of that motion.

Not only was it a perfectly intelligible interpretation but it was the one that expanded democratic participation in committee by allowing every proposal to be brought to a vote, by not preventing matters from being voted upon. Therefore, it makes all the more sense to me that the broader interpretation of the October 31 motion would naturally suit the committee environment.

Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, you are being asked by the Liberals to tell the committees how to conduct their business. The Liberals are actually asking that you tell those committees to have less democracy in how they carry on their business. On the other hand, there is the long and admirable tradition of leaving committees on their own, with Speakers very rarely intervening.

The nature of the complaint here is that the amendments from the member for Kings--Hants were voted on.

Mr. Speaker, what is the evil that you are being asked to address here? The evil is that the member's amendments got voted on. I can understand that some people might consider that an injustice, a difficult burden to bear, but he is complaining that his amendments got voted on. He says that is the biggest injustice he has seen in a decade and a half in the House of Commons. As I say, perhaps it is something other people can complain of but it is certainly not something that he is in a place to complain of.

He says that his rights have been denied. None of his rights have been denied. His rights have actually been protected by the committee. He has a right to propose an amendment and have it considered by a committee. The committee took steps to ensure all amendments were considered. Regardless of the fact that others might not have liked it, it was certainly what he had asked the committee in writing to do. He had asked it to consider the amendments. He had put them forward, I presume, in good faith. Though the number of 3,000 makes me wonder about the good faith nature of them, that is what he did. The committee considered the amendments the member asked it to is hardly an evil that the Speaker needs to address.

Reflecting upon these facts and our procedural guidelines and long-standing tradition with respect to the treatment of committee proceedings, I believe this case is clear cut and, in fact, actually kind of funny. The proceedings at the Standing Committee on Finance last week were perfectly in order and its report on Bill C-45 following its meeting was also perfectly in order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a separate point of order regarding the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Finance. I will endeavour to be succinct in my remarks.

I do think it is important to make you, Mr. Speaker, and other members of the House aware of serious and grave irregularities that took place during the finance committee's study of Bill C-45.

On October 31, 2012, the committee adopted a motion to limit debate at committee during its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-45, what was effectively a time allocation motion. I would like to draw the Speaker's attention to paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) of that motion, which read:

(d) the Committee shall proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-45 no later than Wednesday, November 21, 2012, provided that the Chair may limit debate on each clause to a maximum of five minutes per party per clause before the clause is brought to a vote;

(e) amendments to Bill C-45, other than the amendments deemed to be proposed pursuant to paragraph (c), be submitted to the Clerk of the Committee 48 hours prior to clause-by-clause consideration and distributed to members in both official languages; and

(f) if the Committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-45 by 11:59 p.m. on Wednesday, November 21, 2012, the Chair shall put, forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, each and every question necessary to dispose of clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill, to report the Bill to the House, and to order the Chair to report the Bill to the House on or before Thursday, November 22, 2012.

Of particular importance is the phrase “without further debate or amendment”. The chair of the committee, the member for Edmonton—Leduc, correctly interpreted that motion as follows. He said, as indicated in the blues, that “First of all, with respect to the timing in section D of the motion adopted by the committee, it states that 'the Chair may limit debate on each clause to a maximum of five minutes per party, per clause, before the clause is brought to a vote'. So it's five minutes per clause, this is prior to 11:59pm, not for amendments”.

The member for Edmonton—Leduc, the chairman of the finance committee, continued by saying, “The second is with respect to the end of debate; section F of the motion adopted by the committee states: 'if the committee has not completed a clause by clause consideration of Bill C-45 by 11:59pm on Wednesday, November 21st 2012, the Chair put, forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, each and every question necessary to dispose of clause by clause consideration of the Bill'. So at that point I will deal with all of the clauses that are left if we have not completed our work by 11:59pm.”

The chair further emphasized his point by saying, “To explain this so that everyone understands, if we go past 11:59pm, at that point I will just be putting the votes on the clauses. If we have amendments left to deal with, I will not be putting forward votes on those amendments”.

The member for Edmonton—Leduc correctly interpreted the phrase “without further debate or amendment” as meaning that no amendments could be moved after 11:59 p.m. on Wednesday, November 21, 2012.

However, the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca disagreed with the chair. He argued that all amendments for which notice had been given should be put to a vote. In effect he argued that “without further...amendment” actually means “with further amendment”.

The chair emphasized his interpretation by stating, “I will say though it is still my view, and it's the view based on advice from our clerks that the section you quote, section F, it says: 'The Chair shall put without further debate or amendment each and every question necessary to dispose of' but it says without further debate or amendment so that is my view...”.

Simply put, the interpretation of the motion by the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca was inconsistent not only with any proper understanding of parliamentary procedure but also with any proper understanding of the English language. The phrase “without further...amendment” cannot be interpreted as meaning “with further amendment”. Further, by adopting the motion of October 31, 2012, the committee showed a clear intent to prevent amendments from being moved after 11:59 p.m. on Wednesday, November 21, 2012.

The motion adopted by the committee on October 31, 2012 was silent on when amendments proposed pursuant to paragraph (e) would be moved. As such, that would fall to the normal practice of committee.

Under the normal practice of committee, it is a member's choice to move or not move amendments for which proper notice has been given. When a member provides notice for an amendment at committee, it simply preserves the member's right to move that amendment. It does not require the member to move that amendment. Instead, it provides the member with a choice to move or, upon further reflection, not to move that amendment in the end. At committee, it is the member's choice.

If the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca had wanted to change the committee's rules while following due process, perhaps he ought to have tried to amend the motion that was adopted by the committee on October 31, 2012, or perhaps he ought to have moved a new motion to replace the motion that was adopted by the committee on October 31, 2012. However, the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca did neither of these things. Instead, he challenged the ruling of the Chair, the member for Edmonton—Leduc, in order to give the motion a meaning that was entirely inconsistent with its stated intent. As members know, a motion to challenge the Chair at committee is not debatable. As George Orwell noted, the ability to change the meaning of language is a very dangerous power, but that is precisely what the majority of the members of the finance committee did when they challenged the Chair and overturned his decision.

I provided notice for 3,090 amendments to Bill C-45, pursuant to the rules of this House, to committee and, in particular, pursuant to paragraph (e) of the motion that was adopted by the committee on October 31, 2012. By redefining “without further...amendment” to mean “with amendment”, all of the amendments that I had given notice for were retroactively deemed to have been moved without my consent. That choice was taken away from me, and was done so in a manner that falls well outside the rules and traditions of committee.

I am extremely troubled by the precedent that was set at the Standing Committee on Finance meeting on November 21, 2012.

I am concerned that the majority of members can now challenge a chair and change the meaning of words without any debate. I am concerned that the tyranny of the majority can be used to give a rule its opposite intent, effectively leaving individual members without the protection of any rules at committee whatsoever.

Under the rules governing the House and its committees, decisions are to be made by the majority of members. However, the rules also protect the right of the minority to take part in and influence the debate.

At the finance committee, the majority of members representing the Conservatives and the New Democratic Party conspired to overturn a fair and legitimate ruling by the Chair, the member for Edmonton—Leduc, in a manner that was entirely inconsistent with a proper understanding of the English language and without any respect for the traditions or rules of the House.

The result was to retroactively deny my rights as a member of the committee, without any proper debate. The result was also to help the government speed through passage at committee. This is entirely consistent with the government's view of how Parliament ought to be handled or mishandled, but what I have difficulty understanding is why the official opposition would act as the handmaiden for the government at committee and effectively support the government and aid and abet the government running roughshod over Parliament at committee.

I will raise a point of order about the acceptability of the motion for concurrence at report stage at the appropriate time but I am thankful for the time today. What happened at committee last week was probably the worst abuse of the committee process that I have seen in 15 years in this place. To see the official opposition being complicit with the Conservatives on this perhaps reflects a misunderstanding of the rules at that time, in which case, the New Democrats should simply say that they did not understand what was going on and that they did not intend to support the government on this. That would be entirely acceptable. In fact, given the confusion at the committee at the time of some of the New Democrats, perhaps that is what happened, but it would better if they simply acknowledged that and then joined with us in opposing the government's continued disrespect for Parliament and committee.

Committees of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, the practice that was followed at finance committee, of inviting other committees to study the subject matter and provide input on the work over which the finance committee properly had jurisdiction, is actually an established practice. This is not the first time it has happened. It certainly happened in the past and that alone demonstrates that it is an accepted practice.

Throughout the process the finance committee retained actual jurisdiction at all times. It was clearly the committee charged by the House of Commons to do so, and it did so. However, that should not preclude the committee from inviting input from others, whether that be other committees, members of the public, Canadians, organizations. In fact, that is something that the finance committee does regularly and, again, has done regularly over the years.

The reality is that in this complex world we live in issues can and do cross boundaries. One could talk about, for example, the contributions that musicians make to the country, but they do so not just in a cultural milieu. They also do it in an economic milieu. They are part of the economy. Does that mean we could not have it studied entirely by the heritage committee?

Obviously, as happened with the budget, we have issues that encompass the entire Canadian economy. The Canadian economy includes natural resources, manufacturing, industry, our health care sector and our cultural sectors. By the very nature of the work of the finance committee, and we can see this if we look at any consultation it does, for example, the prebudget submissions that it is once again launching, we would find that people from every conceivable sector of society are before the committee on issues that could very well be before other committees. Therefore, it is certainly appropriate to deal with issues in different ways.

The genius of our system is that we find different ways to do this. We have flexibility within and the rules provide for such flexibility. Sometimes we will have formal joint committees established between different committees that join together in Parliament to deal with a matter. Sometimes a special legislative committee may be set up that achieves the same kind of result by bringing together expertise, and sometimes a committee will establish a subcommittee of its own to deal with a particular issue.

When a committee does that, it does not surrender its jurisdiction. It is done without direction from the House of Commons to do so, but it is wholly within its jurisdiction to seek to consult and to have the work dealt with in that fashion if the committee finds it more efficient and more effective as a way of gathering opinions and getting the best possible decisions made. Throughout, the committee that makes the decision to delegate and to seek input elsewhere ultimately retains jurisdiction. The delegation is not inappropriate. It is entirely appropriate because at the end of the day the buck stops at the delegating committee and the jurisdiction stays there. Procedurally, there is nothing wrong with a committee doing what was done by the finance committee. As I say, this is something that is often done at all kinds of levels.

The opposition House leader says that when faced with a situation such as this the only way to deal with the matter is to take the jurisdiction away from the finance committee and to not simply consult with other committees, as the finance committee did, but to give every one of those other committees the same kind of decision-making power. If we were to do what he is inviting us to do, we could very much create a procedural chaos that would make it impossible for the House of Commons, this Parliament and any parliament for future generations to meaningfully deal with things. We do not want to have an American-style situation where we could go years and years without even adopting a budget because of that kind of legislative chaos and gridlock.

By the member's interpretation, not doing this could create a situation that would extend to every other bill, where the finance committee would have to study almost every single bill that ever came before the House because our first nations are part of the economy, our natural resources are part of the economy, and all those bills would have to go to the finance committee as well. I simply reject that premise. Certainly I do not think it would be a wise ruling in any way, procedurally by our history and by our rules, or in practice, to require that to be how bills should be dealt with.

Finally, the member seems to be saying that, when we are consulting, there is a problem with the notion of inviting other committees, as the finance committee did, to provide suggestions on amendments and that it was somehow inappropriate because it was not a formal delegation but, rather, an invitation to offer suggestions. In this case that is a moot question, because there was actually no amendment that was brought forward from those committees and dealt with by the finance committee.

If there were a problem in proceeding in that fashion, that problem might exist in theory but it does not exist in practice. It reminds me of the way the NDP approaches things. It has an academic bent. It looks at things that work really well in the real world and says that it may work in practice, but the important question is whether it works in theory. That is the NDP approach and we see that approach at work right here in this situation.

In practice and in the real world there were no amendments that came from those other committees. There is no evil here of which the member is complaining that actually needs to be addressed because what he is concerned about did not actually happen. It may be an interesting theoretical question, and I can understand the importance of pursuing those interesting theoretical questions on the part of the NDP. However, in the particular circumstances of Bill C-45, these theoretical questions never actually appeared in practice because no such amendments came forward from the committees.

The finance committee maintained its jurisdiction entirely and wholly throughout, when dealing with amendments and dealing with the bill. It did so properly and in accordance with the rules of the House of Commons and in accordance with what the House of Commons asked the committee to do. The bill was properly reported earlier here today and it should now be the work of the House of Commons to deal with that report.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to wait through much of our procedural moment because I have a significant point of order to raise today. It is of some duration and I wanted to allow members who have to go on to other business to do so.

This point of order is in reference to Bill C-45, specifically with the work that was done by the committees, the powers that committee have and the power that the House retains as the place that created our committees.

It is often said that committees are the masters of their own domain. It is an important concept and it makes an important point about a committee's autonomy. Perhaps you will agree with me when I say that this concept gets exaggerated from time to time by committees.

It means that each of our standing committees is in charge of its own affairs. When it is formed by order of the House and when work is assigned to it by the House, it is largely up to the committee to decide how and when to tackle it. However, it is not true, as some suggest, that this means committees can do whatever they want, whenever they want and however they want. There are rules set out in procedural text, Standing Orders and precedents of our legislature and committees cannot simply throw these rules out whenever it pleases them. Each committee may be the master of its domain in many respects but there are clear and distinct limits on those domains that committees must respect, even if it does not suit some members of the majority governing body.

In the case of Bill C-45, the second massive omnibus bill introduced by the government, the government has been stretching the limits of what can and should be tolerated from a majority government in this Parliament. Parliamentary procedural rules are clear that, notwithstanding the opposition's right to delay things that are unacceptable to them, the government must have the right to make progress on its legislative agenda in a reasonable manner.

However, the government has already tested, and we would argue, broken, the democratic limits of our legislature by packing a legislative agenda of an entire parliamentary session into one or two bills and then cynically adding the words “budget implementation” to the front cover.

In the previous incarnation of this tactic on Bill C-38, Mr. Speaker, you heard multiple submissions from opposition members who felt that the government had simply gone well beyond the reasonable limits of what might be honestly included in its budget bill. You disagreed with the interventions of the opposition at that time, but I hope you will conclude, after this submission, that the government has simply played too fast and loose with the rules that must govern the passage of all legislation, whatever its form or title and that such action undermines Parliament's essential ability to do its work on behalf of Canadians; namely, to be able to hold government to account.

Today, I will not discuss the legitimacy or the value of omnibus bills. It is ironic that this government, in its great wisdom, is single-handedly teaching Canadians words and phrases that they would never have come to know without the Conservatives' help.

A few years ago, the government plucked the word “prorogation” from the pages of procedural texts, making it the topic of discussion around the nation's dinner tables and the impetus behind many demonstrations across the country. Thanks to the Conservatives, Canadians have had to learn a new definition of “ministerial accountability” because, unfortunately, under this Prime Minister, ministers seem to have no accountability. And they have turned the word “omnibus” into a bad word. They have systematically avoided Parliament's oversight by using this legislative tool and abusing the power of their government, which barely won a majority.

During the committee process on its most recent monstrosity of a budget omnibus bill, I believe the government has simply gone too far in its casual relationship with the parliamentary rules that govern this place and Canadian democracy, and that the legislation should be thrown out and made to start over again as a result.

I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, along with this House and the Canadians hoping for better from their Parliament, of what has transpired with respect to Bill C-45, the government's second omnibus budget implementation bill for the 2012-13 year.

On October 18 of this year, following the adoption of the way and means Motion No. 13, the Minister of Foreign Affairs moved, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, that Bill C-45 be read a first time and printed. On October 24, the Minister of Public Safety moved that Bill C-45 be read a second time and referred to committee.

After using time allocation to shut down debate again, second reading of Bill C-45 ended with the passage of the following motion on October 30 of this year:

...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 now read a second time and referred to [the Standing Committee on Finance].

As a matter of record, Hansard on October 30 specifically quotes the Speaker saying, “I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance”.

The reference of this bill to the committee, as set out in the motion the House adopted, was always to the finance committee and only to the finance committee.

That is an important point. Because the House is master of its own activities, and in order to protect its rights, it must be certain that its orders of reference are complied with. As you know, Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the legislative process adopted by the House, a bill can only be referred to one committee, and this committee must be the one designated by the House itself.

Committees derive their existence and authority from the House of Commons. The House creates committees specifically through Standing Order 104, which further regulates how they are constituted and governed under Standing Order 106. The House also sets out the specific mandate of each of the standing committees under Standing Order 108.

An excellent summary of this regime can be found in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, which I will refer to as O'Brien and Bosc, on pages 960 and 962, which says the following about standing committees:

They are empowered to study and report to the House on all matters relating to the mandate, management, organization and operation of the departments assigned to them. More specifically, they can review:

the statute law relating to the departments assigned to them;

the program and policy objectives of those departments, and the effectiveness of their implementation thereof;

the immediate, medium and long-term expenditure plans of those departments and the effectiveness of the implementation thereof;

and an analysis of the relative success of those departments in meeting their objectives.

In addition to this general mandate, other matters are routinely referred by the House to its standing committees: bills, estimates, Order-in-Council appointments, documents tabled in the House pursuant to statute, and specific matters which the House wishes to have studied. In each case, the House chooses the most appropriate committee on the basis of its mandate.

I make particular note that all abilities cited in this passage flow from the House, not from another committee. It is the House of Commons that authorizes these powers. I emphasize the fact that the reference on Bill C-45 to committee was only ever to the finance committee. The motion passed in the House only referred to that committee.

In other words, this does not prevent other committees from studying the content of different parts of an omnibus bill. The committees always have that right, but this study must be separate from the study carried out pursuant to the order of reference the House gave the committee responsible for the official study of the bill in question.

The only way for other committees to legitimately study parts of an omnibus bill is to divide it into several pieces of legislation and ask the House to issue an order of reference for the new bill or bills to these committees.

The official opposition has been calling all along for this bill to be divided and studied properly by the different committees. Members will recall that the official opposition moved a series of motions in the House to divide this bill, using the same method that was used to divide the budget bill and create and pass Bill C-46 on MPs' pension plan, even though we got Bill C-46 only after the NDP rejected the Liberals' original ill-advised proposal to circumvent the legislative process, not only for the pensions of MPs, but also for the pensions of public sector workers and RCMP members.

We have done this in that exact circumstance. The House of Commons took Bill C-45 and, by the powers of the House, divided out the section that was related to the pensions of members and senators.

There was a mistake made in the original proposition by the third party, I must say supported somewhat happily by the government, which would have brushed through changes that would have impacted more than 450,000 public employees, RCMP members and their families without a minute of study or debate in the House of Commons or at any committee.

The official opposition was actually paying attention to what the Liberals had proposed, while the Liberals themselves may not have, and were resistant to the idea of throwing 450,000 public servants and RCMP members under the bus for political expediency.

We divided out that section of the bill and made a counter proposal to just deal with the pensions of MPs and senators. The government was fine with that as well because that was what was actually called for by all members of the House, as opposed to what the third party suggested.

Here we arrive at the essential problem with the approach of the Conservatives to Parliament and making law. They think the rules do not apply to them and their majority means they can cook up any scheme they want just to meet the communication goals of the Prime Minister's office.

In the Standing Committee on Finance, in response to intense pressure from the official opposition and Canadians from coast to coast to coast, in order to give the “appearance” of due diligence on Bill C-45 at committee stage, here is what the Conservatives cooked up.

I will read from the minutes and will emphasize the part that is important to the future ruling of the Speaker. On October 31, the Standing Committee on Finance adopted the following. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance moved:

That, in relation to the Order of Reference of Tuesday, October 30, 2012, respecting Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures,

(a) the Chair of the Standing Committee write, as promptly as possible, to the Chairs of the following Standing Committees inviting those Standing Committees to consider the subject-matter of the following provisions of the said Bill...

A number of the committees are laid out in this relation from the parliamentary secretary: the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development; the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food; the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration; the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development; the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans; The Standing Committee on Health; the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities; the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights; the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security; and the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

This also shows how wide a net the government cast in this bill.

Here are the important parts in the instruction coming out of the finance committee.

This is the part that we argue the finance committee never had the power to do because only the House of Commons can do such a thing.

With respect to section (b) it states, “each of the Standing Committees, listed in paragraph (a)”, all of those which I just recounted:

be requested to convey recommendations, including any suggested amendments, in both official languages, in relation to the provisions considered by them, in a letter to the Chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, in both official languages not later than 5 p.m. on Tuesday, November 20, 2012;

(c) any amendments suggested by the other Standing Committees, in the recommendations conveyed pursuant to paragraph (b), shall be deemed to be proposed during the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-45, provided that the recommendations are received prior to the relevant clauses being considered, and further provided that the members of the Standing Committee...may propose amendments—

Section (d) states:

the Committee shall proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-45 no later than Wednesday, November 21...provided that the Chair may limit debate on each clause to a maximum of five minutes...

Therefore, this is a further time allocation, now at the committee stage, and a further shutting down of debate. Section (e) states:

amendments to Bill C-45, other than the amendments deemed to be proposed pursuant...be submitted to the Clerk...

As well, there are other instructions in sections (e) and (f).

Some important facts immediately stand out. The committee did not present its report on the bill to the House by Thursday, November 22 at the earliest. In fact, it presented the report this afternoon. Why? Because the committee violated its own procedural rules when the government ended up in a new mess as a result of communication issues.

I also note that this study, carried out by committees other than the finance committee, is the tactic the third party used to try to improve parliamentary oversight of this bill, from what I understand.

The Liberals got what they wanted, but only because the government was all set to say it was co-operating, when in fact, the entire process was nothing more than a procedural play orchestrated by the government and its unwitting allies in the Liberal Party, who forgot the old saying: be careful what you wish for.

On the other end of this procedural spectrum, the legitimate end, the motions that the official opposition proposed to split the bill in a real and legitimate fashion, which were quickly rejected by the government almost out of hand, would have referred the separate policy areas in Bill C-45 to the appropriate committees for an actual study. Then each committee could held hearings, called a variety of witnesses with critical expertise and then having hearing points of view on the bill, could have create reasonable amendments for debate and decision in a clause-by-clause meeting in each of those committee hearings.

Finally, each committee could then have reported its bill back to the House in due course. This would have dramatically improved a flawed bill, corrected the twisting of the rules from the government and reconfirmed our collective commitment to respect taxpayer money and their Parliament. This bill has massive implications not only in what it sets out to do but its implications on this place and the legitimacy that we hold as parliamentarians to hold government to account.

In the sham of a process that the Conservatives then used, various committees were asked by the finance committee, not the House of Commons, to study and propose amendments to a bill for which it had no order of reference at all. Not only was this a procedural disaster, but because of the impossibly short timelines, there was no opportunity for reasoned debate at the other committees regardless. That last point is a matter of some debate I realize, but it further emphasizes that a process set up by the government was a true disregard for our legislative process. Committees were hearing entire sections of the bill with one or two witnesses and no cross-examination ability and moving through clause-by-clause in minutes with no discussion.

We have been left with an illegitimate process that flies in the face of our procedures and practices, the implication of which is summed up best by O'Brien and Bosc's passage on committee reports, at page 985, where it says:

In the past, when a committee has gone beyond its order of reference or addressed issues not included in the order, the Speaker of the House has ruled the report or a specific part of the report to be ruled out of order.

When committees have gone beyond their mandate in the past, the Speaker saw fit to either reject sections of that committee's report or the entire report.

Mr. Speaker, you yourself referred this bill to a specific committee. I think the Standing Committee on Finance simply did not have the authority to refer sections of Bill C-45 to another standing committee. The committee had the right and duty to examine this bill and report it back to the House, with or without amendments.

Let me review quickly, for those following at home this procedural nightmare that the government has created, a government that seems reluctant or unable to follow the rules that have been set out by this place for many decades, how a committee is supposed to deal with a complex bill referred to it by the House after second reading.

Normally, after passage of a bill at second reading, the committee which received the bill would organize its time, call for a variety of witnesses based on the lists provided by the recognized parties in proportion to their representation at the committee, hear the witnesses, formulate amendments, schedule a clause-by-clause meeting, call each clause, hear the amendments to the clause, vote on the amendments and the clauses and then, finally, vote on the bill. Mr. Speaker, you and I both know this process well. That is not what happened here.

The results of these decisions would then be reported back to the House, where the legitimacy was derived for the committee's studies. This has been a time-honoured practice and, regardless of the bill, the intensity of the debate or the divisions, it has been a process practised by governments of all political stripes.

The House, in its wisdom, has even provided a mechanism to allow for a variation on the normal progress of a bill through committee, which is called a motion of instruction. I will call once again upon the sage guidance of O'Brien and Bosc, this time in the chapter on the legislative process, at page 752, where it states:

Once a bill has been referred to committee, the House may instruct the committee by way of a motion authorizing what would otherwise be beyond its power, such as, for example, examining a portion of a bill and reporting it separately, examining certain items in particular, dividing a bill into more than one bill, consolidating two or more bills into a single bill, or expanding or narrowing the scope or application of a bill. A committee that so wishes may also seek an instruction from the House.

This is the power of the House of Commons. The House of Commons can send this motion of instruction to any committee to divide a bill, to bring a bill together, to study it in its most logical and proper way. That power rests solely with the House of Commons. No committee can take upon any of those actions themselves. They are not the masters of that fate.

If the government were interested in following the rules of this place and wanted to have a variety of committees study the bill, then it could have moved to instruct the committee to do so, what it should have otherwise been powerless to do. In this case, that is to have other committees conduct a review of the portions of the bill that dealt with their policy areas, transportation, Indian affairs, the environment and fisheries and oceans, and to allow amendments to those portions and to report them separately. The committee, if it felt incapable to deal with the sections of the bill that had so little to do with finance and the budget, could equally have asked the House for instruction.

However, the power to authorize this variance in the legislative process rests only with the House of Commons and not with the finance committee.

In your final judgment and assessment on this point of order, Mr. Speaker, one has to not only look at the case in front of us on Bill C-45, how the process has gone completely off the rails, but project forward that if we allow committees to start to make these types of decisions without any authority whatsoever derived from the House, masters of their own fate takes on a more perverse nature, a more politically inspired nature and one that governments of all political stripes would abhor.

I am going to begin to wrap up in a minute.

Because no other committee was given an order of reference by the House to examine Bill C-45 and because the House did not pass a motion of instruction to complement the order of reference, I find it unacceptable that a committee other than the Standing Committee on Finance held votes on the amendments to Bill C-45, which is exactly what the Standing Committee on Finance allowed. Votes therefore took place and, as the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance's motion clearly indicates, the decision of these other committees had a binding effect on the work of the Standing Committee on Finance. Yet, this is a right that only the House lawfully possesses.

To be clear, any committee has the right to initiate a study on the subject matter that applies to their policy area, including on the elements of Bill C-45, that the government should have included in a separate bill. Though, even then, those committees cannot report back to another committee. Mr. Speaker, you know this well. One committee cannot just choose to report their amendments and clauses back to another, but rather back to the House of Commons from which the committee derives its power and to which it is accountable, not to another committee but to this place.

Committees also have the power to meet jointly with other committees, but there again a report from a joint committee can only come back to the House of Commons not to another committee. This point is addressed by O'Brien and Bosc, on page 983, where it is referring to a joint committee. It says the following:

If a report is adopted during a joint meeting, each committee may present to the House a separate report, even though the two reports will be identical.

I will also refer to the same chapter, on pages 984 and 985, where a committee report to the House is covered. It says the following:

In order to carry out their roles effectively, committees must be able to convey their findings to the House. The Standing Orders provide standing committees with the power to report to the House from to time, which is generally interpreted as being as often as they wish. A standing committee exercises that prerogative when its members agree on the subject and wording of a report and it directs the Chair to report to the House, which the Chair then does.

Like all other powers of standing committees, the power to report is limited to issues that fall within their mandate or that have been specifically assigned to them by the House. Every report must identify the authority under which it is presented. In the past, when a committee has gone beyond its order of reference or addressed issues not included in the order, the Speaker of the House has ruled the report or a specific part of the report to be out of order.

We have rules for committee which show that they receive their authority from the House and which also say the committees report their work back to the House and only to the House.

In conclusion, the other committees of the House should never have accepted the request of the Standing Committee on Finance, which made them a type of subcontractor to what can only be described as the sloppy work of the Minister of Finance and his parliamentary secretary.

I think that other committees could have easily examined certain parts of Bill C-45.

These committees could have heard from witnesses and reported their findings to the House.

However, because the House referred the issue only to the Standing Committee on Finance and the government minimized the importance of our rules of procedure in order to serve its own communications purposes and appear democratic even while introducing an omnibus bill, I think, Mr. Speaker, that as the guardian of the rules that protect the integrity of this venerable institution, you should reject the committee's report and remove it from the order paper.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to your ruling on this.

On one final note, I realize without a doubt that a ruling in favour of this submission would be a strong indictment of the government. However, after all of the legislative and procedural corners the Conservatives have cut since getting their much-coveted and very slim majority in the last federal election, perhaps this would be a healthy reminder to all concerned that their power is still limited by the rules of our parliamentary democracy. Perhaps they could use this as a wake-up call. They are not the kings that lord over this country, but just servants to its people.

The Budget

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition is a large one signed by people from all across Saskatchewan, especially young people, who are expressing their concern with Bill C-45, the budget implementation bill, and the deleterious impacts it will have on aboriginal people in a number of respects.

Finance

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Finance regarding Bill C-45.

The committee has studied the bill at length and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendments.

Northern Jobs and Growth Act

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member commented to the parliamentary secretary that he would like to see incentives for renewable energy. I will just inform the member that there is such an opportunity in Bill C-45, where there is a capital cost allowance incentivizing the use of more machinery in producing renewable sources of energy. First of all, I would like to know if the member will support that legislation as it proceeds.

Second, I understand the importance of having local say in decision-making. As a former city councillor, I am supportive of land management because it does provide a lot of environmental protections, as those closest to the resources and the issues should have the most say. Would my colleague agree that the minister has done a good job of consulting widely in bringing this together?

Third, I would like my colleague to answer the parliamentary secretary's question. Are he and his party going to support this important legislation so that we can change some of these processes and see more development that is environmentally sustainable and provides jobs and growth for people in the north?

First Nations Financial Transparency Act

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am intrigued. I sit on the immigration committee and we have had a chance to look at Bill C-45. The creation of electronic travel authority and the details of how the ETA would be created, the criteria for qualifying, et cetera, were not going to be in the legislation. They would be in the regulations, which of course can be changed very easily by a minister.

Why is it that, in Bill C-27, the government seems to feel it needs to put into legislation the details of the disclosure requirements for chiefs? First nations communities and chiefs have audited financial statements. New Democrats believe the audited statements should first be presented to the first nations communities. We do not need legislation to control what they do. It could be a requirement of the funding arrangements that each of the communities signs.

I would ask my hon. colleague to comment on that.

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely appreciated the speech from the member for Manicouagan and his direct experience with the first nations' life and living conditions. It adds a lot to this debate.

I also want to take time to acknowledge our critic for Indian and northern affairs, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, who has done excellent work in the past and also adds a lot to this debate and this discussion.

Today we are talking here about Bill S-2, an act concerning matrimonial real property on first nations reserve lands. It makes changes to the Indian Act to allow for provincial family law to apply on reserves in the event of a matrimonial breakdown or the death of a spouse or common-law partner.

There is a legal vacuum concerning real property on reserves due to the jurisdictional divide, wherein provinces and territories have jurisdiction over property and civil rights within the provinces, and the federal government has jurisdiction to legislate “Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians” under section 91.24.

The Indian Act does not provide for a division of MRP upon marriage breakdown, and first nations jurisdiction is not explicitly recognized by Canada. This has led to major legal cases, such as Derrickson v. Derrickson, 1986, and Paul v. Paul, also 1986, which were dismissed by provincial courts because the provincial laws cannot apply to lands on an Indian reserve. Thus, there is this legislative gap.

Bill S-2 is the fourth iteration of similar legislation that the Conservatives have tried to pass since 2008, and the NDP has opposed every time it has come forward for debate.

There have been five parliamentary studies that have been conducted on MRP: A Hard Bed to Lie In by the Senate in 2003; Still Waiting by the Senate in 2004; Arm-in-Arm by the aboriginal affairs and northern development committee in 2005; the report by the status of women committee in 2006; and a ministerial report by Wendy Grant-John in 2006.

I just want to mention the latter, which stated that no consensus has been found regarding legislation that could apply to MRP. Among other things, it recommended that concurrent jurisdictional models be used where first nation law was paramount and that the government needed to identify the real costs of implementing provincial legislation on reserves.

All previous bills, and now Bill S-2, neglect almost all of the recommendations made by all of the aforementioned reports.

The Conservatives are trying to say that the recommendations from the 2006 ministerial report by Wendy Grant-John are being implemented, but that is absolutely not the case.

There is no question that this issue needs to be addressed. However, the Conservatives are trying to pass a law that appears to be in favour of first nations women's rights while ignoring the voices of first nations women themselves. They are fast-tracking legislation without addressing all the relevant non-legislative problems that first nations women and families have identified.

The Conservatives are not interested in a fulsome discussion of the bill or any first nations issues. They want to hastily enact a bad law just so they can say they have done something.

The problem requires a comprehensive response led by first nations. This approach must address family support services; more on-reserve housing and shelters; police support services; building first nations capacity to resolve disputes; solutions to land management issues; and resolutions of matters relating to citizenship, residency and Indian status.

Bill S-2 is an insincere and overly simplistic attempt to rectify a complex problem that was brought about by the Indian Act.

The Assembly of First Nations facilitated a dialogue, which identified three broad principles that are key to addressing matrimonial rights and interests on reserve. I will identify those: recognition of first nation jurisdiction; access to justice, dispute resolution and remedies; and finally, addressing underlying issues such as access to housing and economic security.

Based on these principles, I would like to take a closer look at two important themes that underpin the position of the New Democrats on Bill S-2: the absence of meaningful consultation with first nations; and the need to address the non-legislative problems surrounding the issue of matrimonial property rights.

I will turn to what others had to say on this in elaborating on meaningful consultation and non-legislative problems.

Ellen Gabriel, the former president of the Quebec Native Women's Association and AFN grand chief candidate, said:

It is reprehensible that the Government of Canada is so eager to pass legislation [that seriously impacts the collective human rights of Indigenous peoples] without adequate consultations which requires the free, prior and informed consent of Aboriginal peoples.

This is a growing trend of the Conservatives thrusting legislation upon Canadians without first consulting.

For example, the fisheries and oceans committee studied several clauses of Bill C-45, including a clause relating to the definition of what constituted an aboriginal fishery. There was an absence of consultation with first nations. It was only a one-way dialogue.

I will offer another quote from Stuart Wuttke from the Assembly of First Nations. He said at the fisheries and oceans committee:

—we feel if there's consultation and accommodation with respect to first nation interests, there may be a balanced approach. We would definitely prefer that, and we would recommend that consultation and accommodation take place in order to alleviate any potential problems that may exist in the future.

Consultation allows a legislative to find a balanced approach that serves the best interests of all stakeholders and to alleviate any potential problems that may exist in the future. For example, if the government had properly consulted on Bill C-38, it probably would not have found itself making so many amendments now in bill C-45.

According to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to which Canada is a signatory, consultation requires consent. While Canada has conducted limited consultation, no consent was given by rights holders. Therefore, if we endorse Bill S-2, we will be in violation of article 32 of the UNDRIP, which ensures free, prior and informed consent of any matter relating to the lands or welfare of the rights holders.

I will further add what other first nation women are saying. The Native Women's Association of Canada says:

NWAC is being told by its members that the MRP legislation is too prescriptive and does not adequately support Indigenous legal systems. As well, no financial resources will be allotted to support First Nations Governments to actually implement the legislation, if it were to get passed.

The NWAC testified at the Senate hearings on Bill S-2 and said the following:

—our women and population and constituents have repeatedly told us 12 months is not a sufficient transition period if this bill were to go ahead. First Nations are dealing with governments that are already overloaded with many socio-economic issues.

We are looking at a longer-term plan: two years, five years and ten years. Those are the types of plans that need to be developed in cooperation with First Nations, not government designing it and having patchwork input from First Nations. You will have a holey quilt, if you will. Too many resources will also be spent, and it will not be a satisfactory result for anyone.

We would rather take the time, do it right and stop pushing ahead in a rush to have a quick resolution that might not be a good one for anyone.

The image of a holey quilt is a good one and identifies the need for co-operation with first nations that the government should have.

About Bill S-4, which was a previous incarnation of Bill S-2, Pam Palmater, a professor of aboriginal law at Ryerson, said:

The Minister also said that Aboriginal women are in need of “immediate protection”. If the Minister actually listened to the voices of Aboriginal women, he would have heard that Aboriginal women do not want Bill S-4 as it is currently drafted. He would also have heard that what they do want is gender equality addressed in all of Canada's legislative initiatives....

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, it is true that we have experienced some disruptions yesterday and today as a result of efforts by the Liberal Party to disrupt our agenda. I was puzzled as to why it was happening right now at this time. However, a news story just broke, which gave me some insight into it, where the young member for Papineau said that:

Canada isn't doing well right now because it's Albertans who control our community and socio-democratic agenda. It doesn't work....

When he was asked if Canada would be better served if Quebeckers were in charge rather than Albertans, he said:

I'm a Liberal, so of course I think so.... Certainly when we look at the great prime ministers of the 20th century, those that really stood the test of time, they were MPs from Quebec... This country--Canada--it belongs to us.

Obviously, the Liberals do not want to see the Conservatives governing, advancing our agenda or advancing our budgetary agenda. Therefore, I think that answers the NDP House leader's question as to why we are facing these delays right now in the House. However, we will carry on, Albertans and all, and the rest of the country, with Conservatives from coast to coast in this government trying to advance the agenda that Canadians believe in.

We will resume the second reading debate on Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, this afternoon. Tomorrow we will conclude report stage of Bill C-27, the first nations financial transparency act, and third reading will take place on Tuesday. We will start second reading debate of Bill C-47, the northern jobs and growth act, on Monday and the debate will continue on Wednesday.

The finance committee is working very hard to go through Bill C-45, the jobs and growth act. I commend them for their efforts. Our budget implementation legislation contains important measures, such as extending the hiring credit for small businesses, expanding tax relief for investment and clean energy, helping Canadians save for retirement with pooled registered pension plans and improving the registered disability savings plan.

However, I do confess that it does not include the NDP's carbon tax or its proposal for a 1% GST increase. Perhaps that is why its members are opposing it. In any event, we hope to start report stage consideration of Bill C-45 on Thursday, if at some point the Liberals give up on their disruptive delay objective and agree to allow someone other than the member for Papineau to have some say in running the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise on behalf of the official opposition to ask the government what it has planned for the House for the remainder of this week and next week.

The government seems to have lost control of the legislative wheel this week. I will review for Canadians. The Conservatives tried unsuccessfully to ram Bill C-27 through. Thankfully, the official opposition took a principled stand against this and forced them to step back from shutting down the debate. The finance committee has rewritten its own ridiculous rules on how to deal with the Conservatives' monster budget bill, Bill C-45. The committee is now sitting around the clock to deal with this sham of a process, which the Conservative government has set up.

Yesterday, instead of standing up for victims of bullying, most government members shamefully decided to side with the aggressors who bully and torment Canada's most vulnerable young people.

It was a shameful demonstration of the importance the Conservatives attach to their partisan principles, at the expense of common sense.

I guess the only question I have for the government today is the following: How many more abuses of our democratic processes does the government have planned for this week and the one to follow?

First Nations Financial Transparency Act

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we are discussing Bill C-27, which claims to promote financial transparency on the part of the first nations. I am very proud to be firmly opposed to this bill, which does not enhance the accountability of first nations governments to their people.

Essentially, Bill C-27 lays the legislative groundwork for the preparation and disclosure of first nations’ consolidated financial statements and disclosure of the remuneration, in salaries and expenses, paid by the first nations to their elected leaders. The bill would apply to more than 600 first nations communities.

As I said, the NDP opposes this bill, even though we are actively working to improve transparency and accountability at all levels of governance. First, we oppose this bill because it was imposed on the first nations without consultation and because it is contrary to the commitment made by the Prime Minister in January 2012 to work with the first nations. The approach taken by the government is a paternalistic one. In fact, the Conservatives have introduced other bills in this House that were drafted without proper consultation with the first nations.

Second, we oppose measures that would add further to the burden that the first nations bear when it comes to disclosure. We know that the first nations are already buried in paperwork. The former auditor general, Sheila Fraser, in fact, came out in favour of streamlining the tasks associated with disclosure of financial information that the first nations have to complete. She thought that the paperwork had gotten worse in recent years and pointed out that the first nations were already required to file a number of reports that were not even used by the ministers of the federal government.

In 2002, she estimated that four federal organizations alone required at least 168 reports a year from first nations communities, many of which had populations of less than 500. In a subsequent investigation by the Office of the Auditor General, representatives of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Canada revealed that in a single year, that department alone received more than 60,000 reports prepared by more than 600 first nations. That is an unbelievable figure. Why is the Conservative government demanding more and more of these pointless forms and reports?

Aboriginal leaders need to be able to devote their energies to the urgent problems affecting their communities: education, access to clean drinking water and housing.

Much has been said about the new requirements regarding disclosure of the salaries paid to leaders of aboriginal communities. Bill C-27 requires that the first nations disclose the details of the remuneration—salaries, commissions, bonuses, fees and so on—paid by the first nation and by any entity controlled by the first nation to its chief and each of its councillors in their professional and personal capacities.

I see a lot of hypocrisy in this situation. First, in accordance with the year-end financial reporting handbook, the first nations have to submit audited consolidated financial statements to the minister annually concerning the public funds they receive, including salaries, honoraria and travel expenses for all elected or appointed officials and all unelected senior officials of the band. In addition, the first nations have to distribute those financial statements to their members.

I say hypocrisy because, in reality, the average salary of aboriginal leaders in Canada is not exorbitant. We are talking about approximately $60,000 a year for the chiefs and $31,000 for the councillors. In addition, I should point out that in many cases, more is demanded of the leaders of aboriginal communities than of other public officials.

Consider the example of Nigel Wright, the Prime Minister's chief of staff, or his other close advisors. Although their salaries are governed by Treasury Board standards, the public has no access to information on how much they earn or the total amount they receive annually in expense reimbursements. Yet this is what is required of the elected representatives and senior officials of aboriginal communities.

How can the Prime Minister demand transparency from others and not from his own office? It smacks of a double standard. In my opinion, what is good for the goose should be good for the gander.

It is important to understand that under federal law, aboriginal communities already have to disclose their audited financial statements to the federal government, including the salaries, honoraria and travel expenses of the elected representatives of the band.

The first nations already publish their audit reports, and some regularly hold consultations with their members. In some respects, I would venture to say that the bill is even pointless. For example, should the government wish to change the way first nations' financial statements are presented, it could simply revise the funding agreement requirements. That is what the NDP Is proposing. Moreover, it should be pointed out that the first nations were not spared this Conservative government’s irresponsible cuts.

On this side of the House, we want to see the government work alongside the first nations in order to improve governance, which has not been done in this case. The Conservatives eliminated funding for institutions that support governance, including the First Nations Statistical Institute and the National Centre for First Nations Governance. Clearly, the government pays lip service to improving governance in aboriginal communities, while simultaneously doing away with the tools required for good governance.

It is particularly ironic that the government feels the need to lecture the first nations about transparency when this Conservative government is probably the most opaque in Canada's history. How can the government talk about transparency when it has introduced two omnibus bills comprising over 800 pages in an attempt to avoid parliamentary scrutiny? Indeed, I would remind members that Bill C-45 reduces the powers of the Auditor General and ensures that 12 government agencies will no longer be subject to any oversight whatsoever.

Moreover, I would like to remind members that Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, is having to take the Conservative government to court to force the departments to disclose the impact of the budget cuts on services and programs for Canadians.

Speaking of hypocrisy, let us talk about the Conservatives' lack of transparency around the approval process for the CNOOC-Nexen deal. From the get-go, the Conservatives have refused to inform parliamentarians and the public at large as to the impact of the takeover. We still do not know if CNOOC will protect Canadian jobs and the headquarters in Canada. Neither do we know the extent to which Canada will be able to enforce its own environmental standards. By studying this transaction behind closed doors and failing to specify the criteria they are using to determine what constitutes a net benefit to Canada, the Conservatives are demonstrating a shameful lack of transparency.

In turn, Auditor General of Canada Michael Ferguson is accusing both the Department of National Defence and Public Works of concealing the actual costs of the F-35 and circumventing the government's own procurement rules. Worse still, the Auditor General's report clearly states that the Conservatives knew the total costs of the F-35, $25 billion, and chose not to share that information with the House. The Conservatives can say they support transparency, but they show a great lack of transparency in the House.

If I have digressed, it is only to show how despicable it is for the Conservatives to give anyone lessons on transparency when they themselves show such strong contempt for accountability. We attempted to minimize the negative impacts of this bill in committee by bringing forward amendments, all of which were rejected by the government.

For these reasons, I am proud to oppose this bill in the House, and I look forward to answering hon. members' questions.

Motions in Amendment

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise on behalf of my constituents in Surrey North to speak on Bill C-27, an act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of first nations.

I will speak to accountability and transparency in a moment, but I would first point out that the bill is fundamentally flawed in failing to address the real issues that we should be talking about in this House, the real issues affecting our first nation communities, including in northern British Columbia, Alberta and across the Prairies to Ontario and the rest of the country. Those real issues are housing, jobs, education and running water for our first nation young people.

It is a fundamental flaw in the bill that we are not discussing these issues that have affected our first nations for many years. We should be discussing these issues in the House to improve the lives of our first nation people. Yet, the Conservative government has failed to address any of these issues that need to be addressed.

Before starting out with a bill, it would make sense to consult the very people it would affect. We have heard in this House and at committee that the government has failed to address the concerns of first nations by listening to them, the very people the bill would affect.

It is not just about listening, but also about making changes to the bill to improve accountability and transparency. As we heard in committee, New Democrats produced a number of amendments that would have improved the bill, yet the Conservatives did not want to listen to them or make the changes.

From the Conservatives we have seen no accountability and transparency. There was no accountability by the Minister of Agriculture when it came to the XL Foods debacle. We saw no transparency or accountability from the Minister of National Defence or the Associate Minister of National Defence when it came to the F-35s. My colleague from northern Ontario talked about the lack of accountability in Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada in his speech, referring to a “black hole of accountability” there.

I think that accountability and transparency has to start with the government being accountable to the taxpayers of this country. However, the current Conservative government has failed to be accountable and transparent.

Despite hearing about transparency and accountability from the other side of the House, we have Bill C-38 and now Bill C-45, the omnibus budget bills. The Conservatives failed to properly consult on these bills and to put them into the right committees to look at the issues affecting Canadians. I am taken aback when Conservatives talk about accountability and transparency, because the current government has not shown any of that when it comes to a number of issues that have been raised in the House.

There are a number of so-called transparency and accountability issues the government brings up in the bill. I want to highlight them and look at whether there really is transparency and accountability and if things are in place already addressing some of those concerns.

The bill would require every first nation, except those with self-government regimes, to produce an audited annual consolidated financial statement; a separate annual schedule of remuneration covering the salaries, commissions, bonuses, fees, et cetera, paid by the first nation and any entity controlled by the first nation through its chief and each of its councillors in their professional and personal capacities; an auditor's written report respecting the consolidated financial statement; and an auditor's report respecting the schedule of remuneration.

For each of these four documents, the bill requires each first nation to provide it within four months upon request of any of its members, and to publish the document on its website and retain it there for over 10 years. Here is the kicker: the minister must also publish the document on the website of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. Failure of the first nation to comply with these requirements of the bill enables the minister to withhold any funds to first nations, and the minister can also terminate any funding agreement with first nations.

We heard from the previous speaker about the minister arbitrarily having these powers and the ability to withhold money for the very issues that we need to address. We saw him last winter withholding money for three months from first nation schools in northern Ontario communities.

There is a whole bunch of requirements now being put on first nations to report this stuff. I think these onerous requirements are already in place, because we can get that information already. However, I do know that the Conservatives have to play to their ideological base and interest groups to make it look like they are actually addressing the issues of first nations.

Again, if they were really concerned about addressing the real issues in our first nation communities, we would be discussing housing for first nations. We would be discussing education for every child and adult in first nations. We would be addressing water issues in first nation communities.

I have listed a number of requirements of the bill that will put an onerous burden on first nations. I also want to let the House and the people who are listening know that there are certain mechanisms in place that already incorporate some of these things. The current policy based requirements include the fact that the majority of the funding arrangements between Canada and first nations are in the form of fixed term contribution agreements under which first nations must satisfy certain conditions to ensure continued federal contribution payments. The requirements for financial reporting are also set out in AANDC's year-end financial reporting handbook. Under the year-end financial reporting handbook, first nations must submit to AANDC annual audited consolidated financial statements for which public funds are provided to them. These include the salary, honoraria, and travel expenses of all elected, appointed and senior unelected band officials. The latter basically include unelected positions, such as those of executive director and band manager.

Therefore, we already have in place arrangements where first nations provide this information when they sign agreements with the government for the funds available to them.

New Democrats are opposed to this legislation, as it will be imposed on first nations. We need to work in collaboration with first nations to come up with a framework to address the real issues that are of concern to them and Canadians. This has been going on for many years. We need to take a look at these issues. We should be discussing first nations' housing, education and running water. These are the real issues affecting our first nations, yet the government has consistently failed to address them.

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

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-27 be amended by deleting Clause 1.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-27 be amended by deleting Clause 11.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-27 be amended by deleting Clause 13.

Mr. Speaker, for the public watching, Bill C-27 would:

...[provide] a legislative basis for the preparation and public disclosure of First Nations' audited consolidated financial statements and of remuneration, including salaries and expenses, that a First Nation or any entity that it controls pays to its elected officials.

Also, it would require that this information is published “on a website maintained by or for the First Nation,”. This is from the legislative summary prepared for the House.

I have proposed three amendments to the bill and I will speak specifically to those three amendments. One of them would delete the short title because, as always, the titles are often misleading. When we are talking about financial accountability and transparency, one would expect that the government would provide resources so first nations would have the ability to do some of the things that are being requested of them, and that there would have been adequate consultation before this bill was put forward.

The two sections of the bill that I propose deleting include clause 11. This clause of the bill allows “...any person...may apply to a superior court for an order requiring the council to carry out the duties under that section...”. Through the bill, an additional burden is being placed on first nations by allowing members of the general public to take a first nation to court if they do not feel that the information is published as required under the legislation. Nobody would argue that leadership in first nations should not be accountable to their own members but the bigger concern is having anybody being able to put this additional burden on first nations.

The third clause that I suggest we delete is the administrative measures clause. It would vest far too much power with the minister. This would allow the minister to “withhold moneys payable as a grant or contribution to the First Nation...” if they are in breach of the legislation, and that the minister would be able to “terminate any agreement referred to in paragraph (b)”. We would see more power being vested in the minister, which is a dangerous trend that we see throughout the current government.

I will touch on where this legislation came from and why we as New Democrats have some serious problems with it. In the legislative summary, it is pointed out that currently first nations communities have an estimated average of 168 reports and that in some communities that goes up to 200 reports that are required by the federal government. In December 2006, the Auditor General pointed out that “AANDC alone obtains more than 60,000 reports a year from over 600 First Nations, [and the Auditor General] concluded that the resources devoted to the current reporting system could be better used to provide direct support to communities”.

Any of us who have first nations communities in our ridings can attest to the fact that we have serious problems in many communities, whether it is housing, drinking water or education, and we continue to see these problems grow. The government has not committed the resources, the attention or the building of the relationship to ensure some of these problems are dealt with.

The reporting burden on first nations is not new information. In 1996, the Auditor General issued a report dealing about the reporting, and that has gone on report after report. It is not just first nations and the Auditor General who are talking about the problems. We also have a Conservative blue ribbon panel from December 2006 which wrote a report entitled, “From Red Tape to Clear Results”. In that report, the panel devoted a special section to the first nations, Inuit, Métis and other aboriginal organizations.

The report states:

The panel is of the view that mechanisms other than grants or contributions for the funding of essential services such as health, education and social assistance in reserve communities are needed....

It went on to say:

[W]e were reminded that the current practice of treating these kinds of transfers to First Nations, Inuit, Métis and Aboriginal organizations as more or less standard contribution arrangements is fraught with problems and leads to a costly and often unnecessary reporting burden on recipients.

That was the Conservatives' own panel and we have not seen the kind of action needed to deal with these reporting requirements. The assistant auditor general appeared at committee with a prepared statement on October 29, 2012. He stated:

At that time, we met with first nations and were told that they were willing to explore ways to ensure that the information needs of Parliament were met, and they stressed the importance of internal accountability. From their perspective, accountability is non-hierarchical and is based on shared objectives. They stated that the reporting framework was of limited value to them, was onerous, and did little to enhance accountability to the community.

That is a very important point because the bill is being sold as enhancing accountability in communities. If I have an opportunity, I am going to read a statement by the Canadian Bar Association about why simply posting numbers on a website does not necessarily enhance reporting accountability within communities. I am sure many people in the House could speak to the fact that we also need resources provided to communities so that community members actually have the knowledge to interpret the financial statements.

Financial statements, in and of themselves, do not speak to whether people are getting good results for their dollars. They are not talking about benchmarking the number of houses built, the number of children attending school or the number of people who now have access to clean drinking water. A financial statement does not provide that information. People say that by putting numbers on a website, accountability is somehow miraculously going to occur.

First nation leadership and community members would all agree that it is important to have accountability between chiefs and councils and their membership. The Assembly of First Nations back in 2006 produced a position paper entitled, “Accountability for Results”, which contains numerous suggestions about how accountability could be improved both from the federal government to first nations, because that is one accountability measure that is currently not in place, and second, from chiefs and councils to their memberships. It was an amendment the NDP proposed, but of course, it was voted down.

One of the proposals that the Assembly of First Nations made was that there should be an ombudsperson. The proposal stated:

[First Nations]-led and [First Nations]-specific institutions will be needed, as First Nation citizens must be empowered to hold both their local government and the Government of Canada to account. Such institutions include an Ombudsperson's office, so that individuals have a trusted venue to pursue accountability concerns outside of either the local or federal governments. They would also include a First Nations Auditor General who could both provide ongoing advice to assist [First Nations] governments in providing accountability and, at the same time, improve accountability by exposing problems and recommending solutions.

First nation leadership across this country has been at the table consistently proposing solutions to the government and the government has failed to act on any of them. One of the big sticking points about this piece of legislation is the fact that there was not appropriate consultation. I would be remiss if I did not quote from the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Article 19 states:

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

Once again there is a piece of legislation before the House that does not have that free, prior and informed consent. One would think, given that the government almost a year ago committed to a new relationship, that it would have that free, prior and informed consent before bringing legislation forward. We are seeing bill after bill being introduced in the House without that kind of consent.

In fact, an official from the department yesterday talked about omnibus Bill C-45, clauses 206 to 209 in division 8, and said that it was fine for the government to go ahead without that free, prior and informed consent because, after all, they were just technical amendments. That is simply not good enough in this day and age. If the government is committed to a new relationship, it should make sure that it goes beyond engagement and consults with first nation communities across this country and ensures that legislation is what first nations are asking for.

Safe Food for Canadians Act

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend raises a good point, something that this Parliament was victimized with the moment the Conservatives gained power in 2011, that they we will do things their way or no way. They are not interested in reasoned amendments, not on omnibus Bill C-38 or Bill C-45, and not on this food legislation Bill S-11.

There were many thoughtful amendments brought forward, not for the purpose of stage playing or any purpose than to make a good bill better, as my friend from Welland said. However, the Conservatives are not interested. As I said earlier, even at committee when I was moving my amendments, there was no response from the governing party. The Conservatives just asked the chair to call the question because they were not interested in discussing it.

Financial Literacy Leader Act

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate and thank the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas for his excellent speech. Financial literacy is not easy to explain. His concrete examples and the excellent work he did in his riding allowed him to explain to us in detail the importance of this bill.

I have a background in education. It is indeed very important to educate and inform people and to ensure that information is distributed, present and available to them so that they can make better decisions, whether we are talking about seniors or young people, as my colleague rightly said. As far as young people are concerned, this is important in terms of their retirement and the fact that they have a higher debt load because of their maxed-out credit cards that charge exorbitant fees, for example.

The hon. member also mentioned the excellent work done by the committee. This work is not always easy. For example, in the case of Bill C-45, we should have had independent studies in various committees of the profound changes being made to various laws, instead of depending on the power of the Standing Committee on Finance.

I want to congratulate my colleague and ask him the following question. Does he think the bill will help improve Canadians' financial knowledge?

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, before we depart to our constituencies and events for Remembrance Day where most of us will be participating in remembrance services in our ridings, we will resume third reading debate on Bill C-28, the financial literacy leader act.

The week of November 19 will continue to see a lot of important action at the House committee level, where we are looking at the budget implementation act, Bill C-45, the jobs and growth act, as it advances through the legislative process. The finance committee is supported by 10 other committees looking at it and all together they will conclude the review of this very important bill and the very important job creation and economic measures that are laid out, measures that were first put before Parliament back in our March budget.

Meanwhile, on Monday the House will continue the third reading debate of Bill C-44, the helping families in need act, which we started this morning. Given support for the bill from all corners of the House, I hope it will pass that day so the Senate can pass it before the end of the year.

After Bill C-44, it is our intention to take up the report stage and third reading of Bill S-11, the safe food for Canadians act, which was reported back from the agriculture committee yesterday. I hope we will see strong interest in passing that bill quickly, just as we did for second reading.

Once that bill passes on Monday, the House will return to third reading of Bill C-28, the Financial Literacy Leader Act, if we do not finish the debate today.

That will be followed by second reading of Bill S-8, the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act. On Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday, the chamber will consider report stage and third reading of Bill C-27, the First Nations Financial Transparency Act, which was also reported back from committee yesterday.

I should also advise the House that on Tuesday when we return from the Remembrance Day week, immediately after question period I will call ways and means Motion No. 14 respecting some technical amendments to tax laws. Let me assure the House that there should be no doubt about this, but the opposition will no doubt be disappointed. This motion will definitely not implement the New Democrats' $21.5 billion job-killing carbon tax.

Finally, on Thursday before question period, the House will resume second reading debate of Bill S-8 and after question period we will take up Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, also at second reading.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, today I am going to talk about the government's decision to eliminate the experimental lakes program, or to do away with it. I think that decision is catastrophic.

Research on the quality of our water is critical to Canada. The development of the oil sands and the resulting pollution and contamination due to mining operations, not to mention acid rain and so on, are increasingly important stressors for our lakes and rivers. And we are not even talking about the risk of environmental accidents caused by offshore oil and gas development. It is hard to understand why this government has decided to axe a program that was contributing to Canada's reputation abroad.

The program includes research on blue-green algae, on the impact of climate change on our lakes and fish habitat, and on the impact of contaminants on the lakes' biodiversity. The studies being done by scientists in 58 lakes in their natural state are unique and cannot be replicated anywhere else in the world.

Why? Because it is the only place where research is done directly in the lakes, in constantly evolving complex ecosystems rather than in laboratories. Scientists around the world know this very well. That is why they criticized the cuts from the very outset. In Canada, more than 20,000 people signed the petition to continue the existing public experimental lakes.

Why eliminate this program? The government's answer is that it wants to save money. And yet the Conservatives estimate the savings generated by this decision at only $2 million, when closing the lakes will cost $50 million.

This irresponsible decision by the Conservatives will cost us $48 million and threaten the quality of our waterways.

Canada recently announced that it had signed an agreement with the United States on monitoring water quality in the Great Lakes. Will the government be able to meet its international commitments if it cuts all research programs like the experimental lakes program?

The cuts at Fisheries and Oceans Canada will affect hundreds of scientific jobs all across Canada. In Bill C-38, the first mammoth budget implementation bill, the government took the axe to the environmental assessment process. There were over 3,000 fewer environmental assessments this summer. Bill C-45 goes after lakes and rivers. There are now only 97 lakes and 62 rivers in all of Canada that will continue to be protected. All the water quality monitoring mechanisms are being ditched, one after another.

And then the government goes and tells our neighbours to the south that we will monitor the water quality of the Great Lakes. It is completely absurd.

In addition to axing water quality monitoring programs, the Conservatives are gagging scientists. Scientists working on the experimental lakes program cannot talk publicly about what is going on or explain the impact of the cuts on their research program. Tom Muir, who was formerly a biologist with Environment Canada and who is now an independent researcher, found that there was politicization of research within the department.

Scientists can no longer explain their research findings. They have to refer all questions from the media to the department’s communications branch, staffed by employees who are trained to dish out propaganda rather than scientific facts.

Today we learned that Environment Canada research conducted on the oil sands was censored once again. Scientists at the University of Alberta discovered that contamination levels in snow and rain near the oil sands extraction sites were much higher than average.

Here the department made the researchers use a series of canned responses when speaking to the media. In most cases, the scientists were not allowed to answer media questions and had to refer all interview requests to the departmental communications people. We can no longer ask questions, and the public has no right to know whether our lakes and rivers are being polluted.

I have a question for the minister or the parliamentary secretary. What will happen to our Experimental Lakes? Will the program be privatized?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, through economic action plan 2012 and Bill C-38, the government severely cut the budget to Environment Canada, gutted environmental legislation, cancelled the National Round Table on the Environment and Economy. The Conservatives have also silenced dissent from environmental non-governmental organizations and continue to muzzle government scientists, threatening our economy and environment.

Our world-renowned natural heritage is now being further imperilled by a government that fails to understand that water is the foundation of life, is at the centre of economic and social development and is fundamental across economic sectors, including agriculture and energy.

Through its latest anti-democratic omnibus legislation, Bill C-45, the government is stripping federal oversight from thousands of Canadian waterways. Of the roughly 32,000 lakes in Canada, just 97 lakes and 62 rivers will now be protected.

Instead of killing the Navigable Waters Protection Act, will the government prioritize clean water and restore our freshwater ecosystems?

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I seek unanimous consent for the following motion, that, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of this House that the Standing Committee on Finance meet during the week of November 12 to 16 for the purpose of hearing from witnesses in pursuance of its examination of Bill C-45, and that the following standing committees meet during the week of November 12 to 16 for the purpose of hearing from witnesses in pursuance of their consideration of the subject matter of Bill C-45: the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, the Standing Committee on Health, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and, finally, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, while I do not know anything about a so-called deal that the NDP House leader talked about, I do know the Conservative Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance announced a process she was going to recommend to the finance committee to allow study of the bill, which I understand was adopted yesterday. It is a large bill, but it is not as large, of course, as the one that the Leader of the Opposition had when he was part of the cabinet in Quebec.

However, that being said, it is important that it be studied.

Consequently, as our government proposed, next week, 11 committees, including the finance committee, will study the important and necessary economic measures proposed in Bill C-45, the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012.

Yesterday, the finance committee got to work on this bill, not even 24 hours after the House passed it at second reading. This bill will implement key measures, like an extension of the small business hiring tax credit; and let me assure the House, it will definitely not implement the New Democrats' $21.5 billion, job-killing carbon tax.

Turning to business in the chamber, we will start second reading of Bill S-8, the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, momentarily. I think it will be today.

Tomorrow, we will start report stage—and, ideally, third reading—of Bill C-24, the Canada–Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act.

As a former trade minister, I can tell you that the NDP is opposed to free trade. They have made that clear numerous times by dragging out debate, delaying and voting against free trade agreements here in the House. In fact, the hon. member for British Columbia Southern Interior outlined his party's position when he stated that “trade agreements threaten the very existence of our nation.” That is the NDP position.

We will continue debating free trade with Panama next week, on Tuesday and Wednesday. This bill will finally put into law our free trade agreement—an agreement which was signed here in Ottawa almost two-and-a-half years ago.

On Monday, we will resume the second reading debate on Bill S-9, the Nuclear Terrorism Act, before question period. Based on the speeches we heard the last time it was before the House, I hope that these two extra hours of debate will be sufficient for it to proceed to committee.

After question period on Monday, we will see Bill C-36, the Protecting Canada's Seniors Act to combat elder abuse, considered at report stage and, hopefully, third reading.

Also Monday will be the day designated, pursuant to Standing Order 66(2)(a), for resuming the adjourned debate on the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

Finally, next Thursday, we will consider Bill C-44, the Helping Families in Need Act, which I understand was considered clause by clause at the human resources committee this morning. Given the unanimous endorsement the bill received at second reading, I hope it could pass and be sent to the other place before we rise for the constituency week.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise on behalf of the official opposition to ask the government what it has planned for the House for the remainder of this week and for next week.

Today, I will ask questions about Bill C-45, a monster bill from the government, which does not seem to understand the situation at all. The 450-page bill combines issues such as reducing funding for research and development, or protecting lakes in Muskoka, but nowhere else in the country. All of that is found in and among budgetary measures.

What makes even less sense than the bill itself is the lacklustre effort the government made to be transparent about its plan to have the bill studied in committee.

Let us recap where we have come to so far with the government and how its plan, if we can call it that, is going ahead.

Two weeks ago, the government announced a deal to have the committee study the bill, apparently giving it powers for amendments. Since then, motions to conduct these studies at individual committees have been introduced and then suddenly disappeared.

Yesterday, in question period, the Conservative committee chairs refused to answer questions; they did not know or they did not understand them. Just one hour after question period, the finance minister made a commitment that something else would actually happen to perhaps amend the bill.

Now committees can recommend to the FINA committee, but those amendments have no more precedence than motions moved at the committee itself. It only looks like it was a plan written on the back of a napkin, but that would be insulting to plans written on the back of a napkin.

This is the budget of Canada we are talking about. I know relationships take a lot of work, but perhaps the House leader, maybe the whip and the finance minister, could actually get together to organize a conversation to proceed in some logical manner that would allow the bright light of sunshine—

Fisheries and Oceans

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to remind the hon. member that the Conservatives collected fossil awards at the Rio+20 conference. The Minister of the Environment's shelf holds a collection of environmental fossil awards. It is thus difficult to say that the Conservatives have done what is necessary for the environment.

The most recent budget cuts found in the two mammoth budget bills, Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, show that they have not. These bills make radical cuts to the environment and there is nothing in these bills to protect our marine areas. On the contrary, the Navigable Waters Protection Act has been completely gutted. Canada has also take a major step backward in terms of environmental science. As I mentioned, the Conservatives are making serious cuts in this area. This will do nothing to help protect our oceans. Oceans cover a large portion of our planet. They are the very essence of life. Water is the essence of life, and that is why we must protect it.

According to the hon. member, if the government has done everything it can, why was it given so many fossil awards?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to talk about a question that I asked on June 19 about the Rio+20 conference and the Conservatives' catastrophic record.

May 22 was the International Day for Biological Diversity, and the United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, issued this appeal: “Rio+20 must galvanize action to improve the management and conservation of oceans.”

Rio+20 was held in June 2012, the 20th anniversary of the Earth Summit. Two very important environmental proposals were on the table, but unfortunately, the Conservatives fiercely opposed them, which angered Canadians and the people in my riding of Drummond.

The first environmental proposal on the table at Rio+20 was to eliminate over $1 billion in subsidies that the Conservatives give every year to fossil fuel companies—both oil and gas companies. The people in my riding are sick and tired of seeing their tax dollars subsidize billion-dollar oil and gas companies. Unfortunately, at Rio+20, the Conservatives opposed that proposal.

The second environmental proposal was to better protect marine biodiversity in extraterritorial waters, as called for by Ban Ki-moon. Instead of protecting our environment and our health, the Conservatives have another agenda. They are continuing the destruction that they began with Bill C-38. Let me remind the House what that bill included: the Conservatives withdrew Canada from the Kyoto protocol; they eliminated the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy; and they abolished the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

With Bill C-45, they can do more of the same by attacking the Navigable Waters Protection Act this time. For instance, only 97 lakes and 62 rivers in all of Canada will now be protected. That is unbelievable. This means that 99.7% of lakes and 99.9% of rivers in Canada will not have any protection whatsoever. On top of all that, of the only 97 protected lakes, 89% are located in Conservative ridings, which is even more shocking. Of the remaining rivers, the one that runs through Drummond, the Saint-François River, is not protected. People from Drummond are calling me and asking me what the repercussions of this will be. They are shocked to learn that the river will no longer be protected.

Furthermore, I would like to come back to Fisheries and Oceans Canada and more specifically the Maurice Lamontagne Institute, located in Mont-Joli in the Lower St. Lawrence, which has experienced some cuts. This is another example of the vague budget cuts imposed on Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Near Rimouski, more than 120 scientist jobs are affected, including about 30 that will be eliminated altogether. This important institute is one of the main francophone marine science research centres in the world. As I was saying, it plays a very important role, not only here in Canada, but also around the world.

My question is the following: how can the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans claim that the federal government oversees the sustainable development of the oceans, when it is shamelessly cutting anything to do with the environment, whether it is with Bill C-38 or Bill C-45? Can he show us that he truly cares about protecting the oceans?

Securities

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

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Minister of Finance is still dreaming of getting his hands on Quebec securities. Even after he was turned down by the National Assembly of Quebec and the Supreme Court of Canada, the minister did not try to hide his desire to come back and interfere in this key sector of Quebec's economy.

The minister now seems to want to take a back door approach to accomplish things that he cannot accomplish in the light of day, and clauses 168 and 169 of Bill C-45 are particularly worrisome.

What did the Minister of Finance try to hide in this bill with regard to securities?

The Environment

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once upon a time Canada's waterways belonged to all Canadians.

With Bill C-45, only 97 lakes will be protected by federal legislation. A fact of interest is that 12 of those lakes are located in the riding of the President of the Treasury Board. Another interesting fact is that 90% of the lakes that will be protected are located in Conservative ridings.

What gives the Conservatives the right to appropriate our natural heritage?

Citizenship and Immigration

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

Mr. Speaker, unlike what happened to my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Environment and various other committees, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration was not allowed to hold an in camera meeting. However the result was the same. The motion that was moved to study the changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act contained in Bill C-45 did not survive the attacks of the members for Richmond Hill, Willowdale and St. Catharines. These Conservative members did not keep the Minister of Finance's promise.

Will the chair of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration correct this mistake and make plans to examine this bill in committee?

Transport

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Transport will also soon consider a motion to examine the budget implementation bill. This bill contains transportation-related changes, namely with regard to the Canada Shipping Act. The Standing Committee on Transport must therefore examine these changes.

Will the chair of the Standing Committee on Transport keep the Minister of Finance's promise and put the review of Bill C-45 on the committee meeting agenda?

Public Safety

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives said that they agreed with the motions, and the motions were moved. Meetings were held in camera and, just like that, the motions no longer existed. The budget implementation bill, which is supposed to deal exclusively with the economy, also attacks the Customs Act. Therefore, it is imperative that the chair of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security provide for study of Bill C-45. A motion will soon be debated in that regard.

Can the chair of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security assure us that Bill C-45 will be on the committee's agenda?

Fisheries and Oceans

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope that they will understand my question better than they did the previous one.

The monster budget bill will have a major impact on fish habitat, and the gutting of the Navigable Waters Protection Act will affect the lives of thousands of fishers across the country.

The government must listen to fishers. Will the chair of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans commit to studying Bill C-45 in committee, or will he break the Minister of Finance's promise?

Business of the House

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent to move the following motion: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, clauses 179 to 184 of schedule I, related to the construction of a bridge spanning the Detroit River between Windsor and Detroit, be removed from 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 respecting a bridge spanning the Detroit River between Windsor and Detroit and other works”; 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 Transport, Infrastructure and Communities; 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 the 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 because the new bridge between Windsor and Detroit has been a long process in evolution and included new legislation that was passed under the International Bridges and Tunnels Act. That process has been defined and developed, and we want to make sure that it is consistent.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent to move the following motion: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, clauses 206 to 209, related to the changes to the Indian 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 Indian 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 Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development; 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 the 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 in order to conduct a thorough review of the potential impact of this legislation on first nations across the country.

Oral Questions

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent to move the following motion: that notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, clauses 351 to 410 related to changes to the Canada Grain 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 Canada Grain Act; that Bill C-47 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food; 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 particular motion so that we can not only study an act to change the Grain Act but we will vote on it as a separate entity, unlike what the government did with the Canadian Wheat Board Act, where it denied farmers the ability to vote on whether they wished to keep it or not. We would indeed be then voting on behalf of farmers on the Grain Act and the Grain Act alone, so they would know what we were doing, who opposed them and who actually stood for them.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I did want to be in accord with the official opposition and NDP House leader. However, my disappointment was that before we started debate on Bill C-45, what we first encountered was a delay tactic in the form of a concurrence motion brought by the Liberal Party. Indeed, that was very disappointing to us and a surprise because Bill C-45 is important. It is the government's top legislative priority for this fall. All parties know that. He is quite right that I did want to see it debated in substance in the House rather than see those kinds of tactics to avoid debate.

Bill C-45's measures will further Canada's economic recovery and ensure the foundation for more good-quality jobs on top of the over 820,000 net new jobs we have already had. It includes an extension of the highly successful small business hiring credit that is directly helping Canadian entrepreneurs create new jobs.

Unfortunately, we have seen the NDP take an anti-job creation position. Believe it or not, the NDP finance critic actually dismissed the hiring credit as yet again another across-the-board cut for small businesses.

We want to see taxes lowered. We do not want to see higher taxes or an NDP carbon tax. That is why we have a budget bill that keeps those taxes low.

I am pleased to say that we will be voting on C-45 on Tuesday night at second reading, which will give us the opportunity to send it to the finance committee for consideration. The parliamentary secretary for finance has made it clear that she will ask the finance committee to ask, I believe, 10 other committees to study elements of the bill and potentially make recommendations with respect to changes or adopt its contents. The opposition and government members are free to make amendments at committee based on their own study as well as on the studies of those other committees. Therefore, there will be ample study of the bill and that is good for all.

Bill C-45 will continue to be debated this afternoon, tomorrow, Monday, and Tuesday. As I said, the vote on the bill will take place on Tuesday evening.

On Wednesday, we will take up report stage—and, hopefully, third reading—of Bill C-28, the Financial Literacy Leader Act. Should we be able to make quick work of that debate, the House will take up Bill C-12, the Safeguarding Canadians' Personal Information Act, at second reading.

On Thursday morning, the House will consider second reading of Bill S-2, the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act. And, after question period, we will turn to Bill S-8, the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, also at second reading.

Finally, on Friday, we will start report stage of Bill C-24, the Canada–Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act. This bill would implement our free trade agreement with the Republic of Panama—an agreement whose time has long come. In fact, when I was the public safety minister, I was honoured to be present when the Prime Minister concluded negotiations in Panama City, some 38 months ago.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with some irony that I rise and enter the debate on what is coming next after we had a description of a point of privilege and a monkey-wrench tactic that the Conservatives somehow surprisingly feel okay and comfortable with.

I will quote the hon. House leader from across the way on the last Thursday question response. When talking about what was coming next, he stated:

I look forward to a vigorous policy debate on the economy and not on procedural games.

One would have thought that a week or more would have passed before that particular statement would prove to be false. We know that for their own part the Liberals chose some procedural games as we began to engage on the debate around Bill C-45, the second omnibus bill, the second budget implementation act. Some have called it ominous and some have called it some other names.

We on this side of the House have personally and privately assured the House leader for the Conservatives that we are committed to a procedural-free exercise so that we can have a fulsome debate on all of the problems that we see in Bill C-45. We expected the government to make some initial commitments to that. We then saw the invocation of time allocation today, which is a method that the government has grown very addicted to for shutting down the debate.

My two questions for the hon. House leader across the way are very specific.

First, can we expect to see more of these procedural underminings of the democratic process when dealing with this second omnibus bill, be it in the House or when the bill is sent to the committees?

Second, is the government willing and open to the consideration, now that it has separated the bill into its component parts for sending to these various committees, of opening those committees in their capacity and ability to actually affect the legislation they are studying?

What Canadians will quickly see is that the government has cynically agreed to separate this huge 450-page bill into some pieces for the committees to study, but those committees cannot actually affect the bill they are studying. What kind of a situation is that for members of Parliament or committees? It is a “look but do not touch” policy that is coming from the Conservative government and one that will not allow MPs to do their jobs.

All MPs from all sides should be interested in this question. The ability to hold government to account remains a central and critical role for members of Parliament from all sides, including the Conservatives, who last time expressed some lament at having brought in and passed such a massive bill.

Therefore, will the government commit to no more of these procedural tactics to shut down debate, be it here, at committee stage or further stages of this bill so that Canadians can finally get a look at what the government is trying to do to them and MPs can do their jobs?

Will the government be open to the suggestion that, now that it has divided up the bill into its proper topics for various committees to study, that those committees actually do more than study and do the job that every committee has always done with every piece of legislation throughout parliamentary history, which is to be able to affect and improve it and correct the errors that are inherent in any piece of legislation, particularly one coming from the current government?

Bill C-45—Time Allocation Motion

[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.

[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.

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.

Government Operations and Estimates

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates presented on Wednesday, June 20, be concurred in.

He said: I realize that we are delaying the debate on the budget Bill C-45 but I believe it is for an important reason. The government operations committee conducted a detailed report on how the House studies the estimates and produced a report that was unanimously supported with one minor exception.

Before members of this place can begin to properly debate the budget and the proposed expenditure cuts, we must clarify our desire for better and more timely information. Concurring in this report would do just that. I hope members on both sides of the House appreciate that this is not a hostile move. I believe that the President of the Treasury Board indicated on Monday during question period that he will support concurring in this report and I am confident that the motion will also receive the support of opposition members.

I will begin by providing a little background for the study in the words of the report itself. It reads:

In recent history, there have been two wide-ranging reviews of the estimates process, one by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in 1998, and another by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates...in 2003. Of the 75 recommendations that came out of the two reports...few changes were made. The process for considering the estimates and supply should be revitalized, as there is still a need for more meaningful scrutiny.

In terms of an overview of the study, I will quote O'Brien and Bosc from The Procedure of the House of Commons: A Study of Its History and Present Form by Josef Redlich in terms of the importance of this topic. He writes:

The whole law of finance, and consequently the whole British constitution, is grounded upon one fundamental principle, laid down at the very outset of English parliamentary history and secured by three hundred years of mingled conflict with the Crown and peaceful growth. All taxes and public burdens imposed upon the nation for purposes of state, whatsoever their nature, must be granted by the representatives of the citizens and taxpayers, i.e., by Parliament.

Because Canada follows the British parliamentary model, that same statement applies to this country.

The first topic of the report I will talk about is “cash versus accrual accounting”. Recommendation 1 of the report is:

That the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat complete its study of accrual-based budgeting and appropriations and report back to Parliament by March 31, 2013.

We have been told by the government that it will provide this report by March 31, 2013.

In terms of the rationale, I will read, again, from the report:

In the course of its study, the Committee considered the matter of cash versus accrual-based appropriations in the context of what information is most useful for parliamentarians in their consideration of estimates and approval of supply. The Committee heard from some witnesses who suggested that the financial information and appropriations in the main and supplementary estimates should be presented on an accrual basis as opposed to a cash basis. However there was no consensus among witnesses on the matter and the Committee heard from several witnesses who strongly favoured that information in the estimates remain on a cash basis.

In other words, there was no consensus among the experts as to whether cash or accrual accounting was better and, therefore, we did not pronounce on that issue, but we have asked that the Treasury Board Secretariat complete a study in the coming months.

The next issue concerns the timing of the budget versus the main estimates. Recommendation 6 reads:

That, to the extent possible, the budget items for a given year are reflected in the main estimates for that same year; and therefore that the government present its budget in the House of Commons no later than February 1 of each year; that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs pursue amendments to the Standing Orders, procedure and practice of the House of Commons in order to move the date on which the main estimates are presented to the House back to a later date in March; and that the Committee report to the House on its study by March 31, 2013.

The government does not support fixing the budget date as no later than February 1. The rationale for this, as confirmed by many expert witnesses, is that the earlier the budget is made, the more it is likely the budget measures of the current year will be included in the main estimates. The government makes the argument that this reduces the flexibility of the government. However, in the view of the committee, such a flexibility reduction is worth it in order to bring promptness of information to those who study the estimates. Indeed, Auditor General Michael Ferguson confirmed this point when he stated at committee:

The Main Estimates do not provide a complete picture of the spending plan and is not connected with the Budget. When we performed the audit in 2006, we found that the main reason for including items in the Supplementary Estimates was timing. The tabling of the Main Estimates in advance of the Budget was a key factor that gave rise to increased use of Supplementary Estimates.

In other words, the timeliness and usefulness of the information would be much enhanced if the government would agree to the committee's unanimous proposal to say that the budget must not be later than February 1.

The next issue involves questions in advance.

Recommendation 10 states:

That, where feasible, standing committees provide questions to departmental officials in advance of hearings on the estimates, and that committee members endeavour to ensure the necessary departmental officials are invited to appear for estimates hearings.

This is an issue that falls within the purview of the House of Commons rather than the government.

Recommendation 11 states:

That standing committees review statutory programs on a cyclical basis, at least once every eight years.This also falls within the purview of the House.

Recommendation 12 states:

That departments and agencies include tax expenditures, currently included in the Department of Finance’s Tax Expenditures and Evaluations report, in their reports on plans and priorities, as determined by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat to best fit their mandate.

The government does not support putting the tax expenditures in the reports on plans and priorities, but has said that it would coordinate the release of the annual tax expenditure report with the main estimates and that the Finance Department would offer briefings.

Recommendation 13 states:

That standing committees review tax expenditures presented in departmental reports on plans and priorities on a cyclical basis at least once every eight years to assess whether or not they are meeting their intended objective.

This too is within the purview of the House of Commons.

I come now to the topic of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Recommendation 15 states:

That the House of Commons give its Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates the mandate to undertake a study of the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer which would include a thorough analysis of the mandate and function of the Office in order to better serve members of Parliament; and that in its study, the Committee should consider all structural models for the Office including, but not limited to, the Parliamentary Budget Officer reporting directly to Parliament as an Officer of Parliament.

This also is within the purview of the House. However, the government did not display great enthusiasm for this proposal, stating that the Library of Parliament committee had already studied the question of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. This was some time ago, and I think members of the committee, including Conservative members, were in agreement that now, just a few months before the current Parliamentary Budget Officer leaves the job and another person is appointed, would be a very good time to conduct a new study of the desirable mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

I will quote a couple of expert witnesses.

First, Allen Schick, distinguished professor, School of Public Policy, University of Maryland, stated, “Canada” in establishing a Parliamentary Budget Officer:

—was following a trend that is quite widespread around the world, and that is staffing up parliament to be able to better perform its budget-related responsibilities....The role often is to review the estimates to see whether they are reliable. The key budget work today around the world is not simply whether the money should be spent, but are the assumptions underlying the estimates robust? Are they reliable?

I think that is precisely the area where research done by the Parliamentary Budget Officer is invaluable.

Joachim Wehner, associate professor in public policy at the London School of Economics, stated:

The first one [change] is to protect and enhance the role of the Parliamentary Budget Officer....Internationally, the Parliamentary Budget Officer of Canada is very highly regarded, and it's certainly a major change...in the degree the parliament in Canada has access to an independent, highly professional research capacity...some adjustments are possible to the legal framework for the Parliamentary Budget Officer. In particular, this role could be strengthened, or the status be strengthened, if he were a full officer of Parliament. Moreover, steps could be taken so that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has total access to all relevant information. I see some scope for strengthening it also on the basis of international experience.

These are two very laudatory reviews of our current Parliamentary Budget Officer and very definite proposals that he be made an officer of Parliament.

I come now to recommendation 16 on online resources, which states:

That the government develop a searchable online database that contains information on departmental spending by type of expense and by program.

The government is committing to make this information available in a better digital format.

Recommendation 14 states:

That standing committees dedicate an in camera meeting at the beginning of a new Parliament, and periodically as needed, for a briefing session on the estimates and supply process and the related documents, with a focus on the committee’s role in scrutinizing government spending

This recommendation is within the purview of the House. The purpose is to ensure that all committee members have adequate training and information to carry out an examination of the estimates in an efficient and proper way.

Next is recommendation 2 on vote structure, which states:

That the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat transition the estimates and related appropriations acts from the current model to a program activity model, that they assist federal departments with this process, and that they prepare a timeline for this transition by March 31, 2013, and transmit this timeline to the Committee.

The government said that it would provide a detailed report on transition to a program activity by March 31, 2013.

I would like to quote the current Parliamentary Budget officer, Kevin Page, because it is a very good quote. He states

On structure, it makes little sense in a 21st century world for parliamentarians to be voting on inputs like operations and capital, and grants and contributions that cut across a department spending many billions of dollars for a diverse set of program activities. Given the recent experiences with border infrastructure funds and aboriginal housing and education, would it not make more sense to consider program activities (five, 10 or 15 per department) or their associated outputs as more relevant control gates? Why should ministers and their accountability officers be able to move monies from one activity to another without scrutiny or consent? Would voting on program activities not encourage more meaningful scrutiny on service level impacts as we move forward with spending restraint? Would this not help simplify our estimates system, which collects financial and non-financial performance data on program activities?

The answer to all of those questions is a definite “yes”. I can assure members that the committee was absolutely unanimous that in the 21st century it made absolute sense to proceed with estimates based on program activity.

Next I come to the deemed adopted rule. Currently, the main estimates must be tabled by March 1 and reported back by May 31. Supplementary estimates must be reported back no later than three sitting days before the final supply day in the related supply period.

Recommendation 8 states:

That the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs pursue amendments to the Standing Orders, procedure and practice of the House of Commons in order to require standing committees to consider during a minimum amount of time the estimates referred to them, and that the Committee report to the House on its study no later than March 31, 2013.

That is within the purview of the House, as is recommendation 9, which states:

That as part of its amendments to the Standing Orders, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs examine the feasibility of providing standing committees at least two sitting weeks to consider and report on the supplementary estimates, and that the Committee report to the House on its study no later than March 31, 2013.

I will quote Ned Franks, professor emeritus of the Department of Political Studies at Queen's University, who thinks that the deemed adopted rule needs to stay.

He states:

I do not like the process of deeming, which means that the votes are deemed to be passed whether they come out of committee or Parliament has approved them or not. But bearing in mind the capacity of parliamentary committees and Parliament itself to delay, procrastinate, and simply obstruct business, I think deeming is an essential part of the Canadian financial processes.

He later continues:

—I think we need that deeming thing in there as a protection against just pure bloody-minded obstruction and the refusal to pass budgets in minority parliaments.

Some of my colleagues might believe that there is never any bloody-minded obstruction in this place, but that is what the expert has suggested. It is for that reason the committee did not propose to get rid of the deeming rule, but rather to propose measures that would ensure a certain minimum amount of time was spent in examining the estimates and the supplementary estimates.

That completes the essence of our recommendations.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are continuing their attacks on Canadian heritage lakes and rivers.

By weakening the Navigable Waters Protection Act and thus eliminating protections for our lakes and rivers, all through measures hidden in a second massive budget implementation bill, the Conservatives are allowing the development of infrastructure that could harm these same waterways without requiring that environmental assessments be conducted first.

How many lakes and rivers will be laid to waste and how many environmental assessments will be set aside because of Bill C-45?

Bill C-45—Jobs and Growth Act, 2012

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been consultations and I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That the House recognize that the provisions of Bill C-45 dealing with members' pensions should be enacted as quickly as possible, and passed without further debate;

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 divided into two bills: Bill C-45, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, and Bill C-46, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act; and

That Bill C-46 be composed of

(a) clauses 475 to 514 of Bill C-45, as it is presently composed,

(b) a clause, inserted before all of the other clauses, to provide that “This act may be cited as the Pension Reform Act”, and

(c) a clause, inserted after all of the other clauses, to provide that “This act comes into force, or is deemed to have come into force, on January 1, 2013”;

That Bill C-46 be deemed to have been read the second time and deemed referred to a committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read the third time and passed;

That Bill C-46 be composed of its remaining clauses;

That Bill C-45 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order;

That the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary; and

That Bills C-45 and C-46 be reprinted.

Combating Terrorism Act

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been consultations concerning the provisions of the second budget bill dealing with members' pensions. I hope to receive the unanimous consent of the House for the following motion. It is a slightly edited version of what was proposed by the Liberal House leader yesterday.

I move that the House recognize that the provisions of Bill C-45 dealing with members' pensions should be enacted as quickly as possible and passed without further debate; 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 divided into two bills: Bill C-45, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures; and Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act; and that Bill C-46 be composed of: (a) clauses 475 to 553 of Bill C-45 as it is presently composed; (b) a clause inserted before all of the other clauses to provide that this act may be cited as the pension reform act and; (c) a clause inserted after all of the other clauses to provide this act comes into force or is deemed to have come into force on January 1, 2013; that Bill C-46 be deemed to have been read the second time and deemed referred to committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read the third time and passed; that Bill C-45 be composed of the remaining clauses; that Bill C-45 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior the adoption of this order; that the law clerk and parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary; and that Bill C-45 and Bill C-46 be reprinted.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, I would have been quite happy to have consented to the motion had the member not included in it a provision for an additional opposition day. Had the member decided to conclude that NDP was prepared, since its subject for today was food safety, to make the balance of the day the debate on Bill S-11 and then have it proceed to committee, we would have been quite delighted to consent.

In terms of his suggestions on the budget bill, I am looking forward to meeting with him and discussing with him what opportunities might exist there further.

Earlier today, the Minister of Finance introduced Bill C-45, the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012.

This important piece of legislation will bolster Canada’s economy and help improve communities with initiatives that build a strong economy and create jobs, support families and communities, promote clean energy and enhance neutrality of the tax system, and respect taxpayers’ dollars.

We will start second reading debate of Bill C-45 on Wednesday—once honourable members have had a chance to review the bill and discuss it at next week’s caucus meetings. The debate will continue on Thursday and Friday.

I genuinely hope all members will take advantage of the budget bill study week that is available to review the valuable measures that are set out as the second half of our legislative arm of our comprehensive economic action plan 2012. One highlight of the study week will be a briefing arranged by the minister for all hon. members on Monday evening. I hope many MPs can attend, and certainly more than the paltry attendance of opposition members that appeared this spring for the briefing on Bill C-38.

I look forward to a vigorous policy debate on the economy and not on procedural games.

I turn now to the business of the House leading up to Wednesday.

This afternoon we will see the conclusion of the NDP's opposition day. Regrettably, I was personally disappointed that the official opposition did not answer my call last week to lay out the details of its $21.5 billion carbon tax and how it would raise the price of gas, groceries and electricity. Though, I was encouraged that this week in question period the New Democrats actually did acknowledge the subject and raised it.

Tomorrow and Monday will see us resume second reading of Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act. I understand we should finish that debate sometime on Monday, at which that time we will then turn to Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act; Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act; and Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act.

On Tuesday, we will debate the second reading of Bill S-11, the safe food for Canadians act, unless we find some other approach that would allow us to move on a more urgent basis. Since we did not get unanimous consent to move it forward quickly, we are hopeful there will be some other approach that can be agreed upon to move quickly with it. We hope that if we do debate it that day, we will be able to deal with it quickly and then spend the balance of that day debating Bill C-15 and Bill C-12, the safeguarding Canadians' personal information act.

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

Mr. Speaker, what a great idea.

It is an honour for me to rise to ask the government, on behalf of the opposition, what it has in store for the House for the rest of this week and for next week.

This government clearly did not understand the message that thousands of Canadians sent it last spring regarding the omnibus Bill C-38 on the budget. Canadians said that the bill was an attack on the democratic process and on the integrity of the House, and a violation of the right of all Canadians to hold their government to account.

Today we have received Bill C-45, another monstrous bill from a government that simply does not seem to understand. The bill is 450 pages long and combines measures such as cutting funding for research and development and watering down environmental assessment rules with actual budgetary measures.

Clearly this government has not learned its lesson. Canadians expect more transparency and accountability from the Conservatives.

Eighteen years ago, the member for Calgary Southwest, the Prime Minister, said, and I want to quote him to set the context for what I am about to approach:

Mr. Speaker, I would argue that the subject matter of the bill is so diverse that a single vote on the content would put members in conflict with their own principles.

We now know that same member, as the Prime Minister, does not believe that applies to him any longer. At the very least, as we need to understand this bill and fully analyze, I will ask the government three questions about what follows.

Will the government split this bill into its component parts to allow for proper study?

If not, will it allow for multiple standing committees to study the divisions of this bill that fit into those committee mandates?

At the very least, will it allow for full debate on this bill without slamming the door with further closure or time allocations, as we saw last spring?

Last, New Democrats welcomed this morning's long overdue arrival of Bill S-11 from the Senate, which has been waiting for passage there for more than 120 days, and was killed by prorogation by the government previously. We are interested in passing this bill quickly to committee.

We are also interested in the integrity of the legislative process. I am somewhat surprised that the government is not so much. It has had to amend a number of its hastily written bills and has asked Canadians to simply trust it on this one and move it all stages. It cannot work with a Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food who has failed us repeatedly and seriously in his role.

With Bill S-11 in mind, I believe that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, this House move immediately to debate at second reading of S-11, that today's order for supply be deemed not to have been called, and that the order for the putting of the question on the supply motion and the deferral of that vote be deemed to have been withdrawn.